CONVERTED 


HINTS 


INTERPRETATION  OF  PROPHECY 


BY 


M.  STUART, 


PROFESSOR  IN  ANDOVER  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY. 


5*1 


or  THE 


ANDOVER: 
ALLEN,  MORRILL  &  WARDWELL. 

NEW  YORK  :  DAYTON  AND  NEWMAN. PHILADELPHIA  :  PERKINS 

AND  PURVES. BOSTON  :  CROCKER  AND  BREWSTER. 

1842. 


Si 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1842,  by 

MOSES    STUART 
in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  Massachusetts. 


a^// 


PREFACE. 


No  apology  is  necessary  for  engaging  in  the  investigation 
of  the  subjects,  which  are  briefly  treated  of  in  the  following 
sheets.  These  matters  are  of  deep  interest  to  every  inqui- 
ring Christian ;  and  the  character  of  the  Scriptures,  in  the 
view  of  the  world,  is  in  no  small  degree  concerned  with 
them.  Unbelievers  reproach  us  with  giving  credit  to  a  book 
which  is  full  of  enigmas,  and  allege  that  every  one  interprets 
it  according  to  his  own  fancy,  and  so  as  to  support  his  own 
particular  opinions.  Nor  is  this  all.  They  even  charge 
ambiguity  upon  the  Scriptures  themselves ;  and  they  are  ap- 
parently moved  to  do  this,  by  the  ever  varying,  discrepant, 
and  sometimes  even  opposite  conclusions  of  expositors.  No 
book,  they  say,  which  is  plainly  and  honestly  written,  could 
possibly  afford  room  for  such  diversity  of  opinion. 

Particularly  have  such  charges  been  made  against  the 
prophecies.  These  have  been  compared  to  the  ambiguous 
vaticinations  of  the  heathen  oracles,  and  pronounced  to  be 
deserving  of  merely  the  same  credit  which  is  given  to  them 
by  enlightened  minds. 

One  might  reply  to  all  this  by  saying,  that  the  abuse  of  a 
thing  is  no  good  argument  against  the  right  and  proper  use 
of  it ;  that  the  mistakes  of  expositors  are  not  chargeable  up- 
on the  original  writers,  unless  those  mistakes  are  unavoida- 
bly connected  with  the  expressions  of  these  writers;  and 
finally,  that  when  men,  ill-informed  or  ignorant  of  the  true 


Y 


4  PREFACE. 

nature  of  scriptural  language,  misinterpret  or  pervert  it,  it  can 
be  no  good  ground  of  objection  to  the  sacred  books  as  they 
are  in  themselves. 

If,  in  addition  to  such  a  reply,  it  can  be  shown  that  the  pro- 
phecies, against  which  the  charges  in  question  are  specially 
directed,  are  susceptible  of  a  plain,  fair,  and  natural  interpre- 
tation, and  that  historical  facts  accord  with  such  an  interpre- 
tation, the  stumbling  block  that  is  cast  in  our  way  would 
seem  to  be  removed. 

An  attempt  to  do  this,  in  regard  to  some  of  the  more  im- 
portant prophetic  passages,  which  have  of  late  years  been 
the  subject  of  frequent  and  animated  discussion,  is  made  in 
the  following  pages.  To  write  a  large  volume  on  such  topics 
would  be  comparatively  easy ;  to  select,  combine,  and  ex- 
hibit matter  appropriate  to  a  small  one,  is  a  more  difficult 
task. 

If  the  path  in  which  I  travel  should  be  thought  by  some  to 
be  new,  I  hope  this  will  not  prevent  any  reader  from  giving  it 
a  leisurely  and  thorough  examination,  before  he  abandons  it. 
If  some  of  the  results,  in  this  little  treatise,  should  appear  new 
to  the  reader,  I  must  suggest  to  him,  that  they  are  not  the 
consequence  of  seeking  after  novelties,  but  simply  of  follow- 
ing out  the  plain  and  obvious  principles  of  interpretation. 
If  he  does  not,  after  examination,  find  it  to  be  so,  let  him  con- 
demn the  book. 

If  there  be  any  Bible  for  us,  it  is  one  which  consists  of  hu- 
man language,  interpreted  in  a  manner  consonant  with  the 
laws  of  language.  My  principal  object  is,  to  protest  against 
the  substitution  of  fancy  and  conjecture  in  the  interpretation 
of  the  Scriptures,  in  the  place  of  established  principle  and 
rule.  With  a  sincere  love  for  all  that  is  new,  whenever  it  is 
better  than  the  old,  I  am  still,  throughout  this  book,  a  tho- 
rough Conservative  in  respect  to  the  fixed  and  immutable  prin- 
ciples of  reasonable  hermeneutics.     I  hope  for  a  hearing — 


V 


PREFACE.  5 

I  will  not  despair  even  of  approbation — by  those  who  love 
this  species  of  Conservatism.  At  all  events,  if  it  must  be  that 
any  are  disposed  to  turn  away  from  the  subject  with  only  a 
slight  examination  of  it,  and  thus  decline  to  give  me  a  fair  op- 
portunity to  gain  their  assent,  I  would  at  least  say :  ndtagov 
fisv,  axovaov  ds  ! 

It  is  time  for  the  churches,  in  reference  to  the  matters 
now  before  us,  to  seek  some  refuge  from  the  tumultuous 
ocean  on  which  they  have  of  late  been  tossed.  To  those 
who  long  for  a  quiet  harbour,  a  chart,  which  offers  even  any 
tolerable  grounds  of  hope  that  the  course  toward  such  a  ha- 
ven is  marked  out,  will  not  be  unwelcome.  /^/ 

I  make  no  promises.  I  have  satisfied  myself  as  to  the 
course  which  ought  to  be  pursued ;  and  in  this  state  of  mind 
it  is  natural  to  cherish  a  hope,  that  a  process  of  thinking  and 
reasoning,  similar  to  that  through  which  I  have  passed,  may 
satisfy  others.  With  this  desire  I  give  my  little  book  to  the 
public. 

Some  of  the  views,  which  are  exhibited  in  the  following 
pages,  may  be  found  in  the  early  volumes  of  the  Biblical  Re- 
pository, ranged  under  different  titles.  But  they  are  here 
repeated  with  many  modifications  and  additions.  If  contin- 
ued and  often  repeated  study  and  reflection  have  not  cor- 
rected them,  in  some  respects,  they  have  at  least  served  to 
expand  them.  There  is,  moreover,  some  important  advan- 
tage in  having  them  brought  together,  and  exhibited  so  that 
a  comparison  of  them  may  be  easily  made. 

The  introduction  of  a  few  Hebrew  and  Greek  words  was 
unavoidable,  in  the  execution  of  my  plan.  For  the  most 
part  these  are  so  managed,  as  to  occasion  no  serious  embar- 
rassment to  the  well-informed  English  reader. 

M.  STUART. 

Theol.  Seminary,  Andover, 
15th  June,  1842. 

1 


HINTS 


ESPECTING      THE 


INTERPRETATION   OF    PROPHECY. 


§  1.  Introduction. 

The  history  of  scriptural  interpretation  presents  few,  if 
any,  phenomena  more  peculiar  than  those  which  have  been 
exhibited,  by  some  of  the  modes  in  which  parts  of  the  books 
of  Daniel  and  of  the  Revelation  have  been  explained,  by  a 
large  class  of  English  and  American  expositors.  It  would 
be  a  difficult  task  to  enumerate  all  the  writers  of  the  class 
in  question,  who  have  made  their  appearance  before  the 
public ;  and  still  more  difficult,  to  make  out  even  a  sketch 
of  all  their  peculiar  and  in  some  respects  ever  varying  inter- 
pretations. It  is  no  part  of  my  present  design  to  attempt 
this.  As  a  polemic,  or  an  antagonist  of  particular  writers, 
it  is  not  my  wish  or  intention  to  appear.  Nor  is  it  at  all 
within  my  purpose  to  write  a  book  on  the  general  subject 
of  expounding  prophecy.  My  design  is,  to  keep  strictly 
within  the  bounds  designated  by  the  title  of  this  Essay ; 
and  therefore  I  shall  attempt  no  more  than  to  give  some 
hints,  addressed  to  the  consideration  of  the  Christian  pub- 
lic, in  respect  to  some  two  or  three  of  the  principles  gene- 


8  INTRODUCTION. 

rally  adopted  by  the  expositors  already  named,  in  their  in- 
terpretation of  Daniel  and  of  the  Apocalypse. 

The  subjects  of  discussion  to  which  I  have  adverted, 
may  be  comprised  under  three  distinct  heads.  The  first 
is  the  proposition,  that  there  is  in  many  parts  of  the  pro- 
phecies, an  occult,  mystical,  undeveloped  meaning,  which 
renders  those  predictions  occasionally  pregnant  with  a  dou- 
ble sense.  The  second,  that  some  other  prophecies  have 
a  meaning  which  is  so  concealed  and  obscure,  that  it  can 
never  be  discovered  until  the  events  take  place  to  which 
they  refer.  The  third  is,  that  the  leading  designations  of 
time  in  the  book  of  Daniel  and  the  Apocalypse,  viz.  "  a 
time,  times,  and  half  a  time,"  and  "  forty  and  two  months 
or  twelve  hundred  and  sixty  days,"  comprise,  not  the  actual 
period  literally  named,  but  1260  years.  In  other  words, 
the  general  principle,  in  respect  to  this  third  head,  is,  that 
the  times,  named  in  the  two  books  before  us,  are  designed 
to  be  understood  as  meaning,  that  each  day  is  the  repre- 
sentative of  a  year. 

For  a  long  time  these  principles  have  been  so  current 
among  the  expositors  of  the  English  and  American  world, 
that  scarcely  a  serious  attempt  to  vindicate  them  has  of 
late  been  made.  They  have  been  regarded  as  so  plain, 
and  so  well  fortified  against  all  objections,  that  most  ex- 
positors have  deemed  it  quite  useless  to  defend  them.  One 
might  indeed  almost  compare  the  ready  and  unwavering 
assumption  of  these  propositions,  to  the  assumption  of  the 
first  self-evident  axioms  in  the  science  of  geometry,  which 
not  only  may  dispense  with  any  process  of  ratiocination  in 
their  defence,  but  which  do  not  even  admit  of  any. 

If  I  have  overstated  the  confidence  that  has  been  felt 
and  exhibited  as  to  the  principles  in  question,  it  is  not  from 
design.  I  have  stated  merely  the  impression  that  has  been 
made  on  my  own  mind,  by  the  perusal  of  many  expositors 


V 


INTRODUCTION.  if 

of  prophecy ;  and  I  would  merely  make  the  appeal  to  every 
intelligent  reader,  whether  my  representation  is  not  sub- 
stantially correct. 

Is  it  lawful  and  safe,  now,  to  call  in  question  a  mode  of 
interpretation  so  generally  admitted,  and  which  has  so  long 
been  current  among  us  t  Lawful,  I  think,  it  may  be ;  for 
the  Scriptures  have  prescribed  to  us  none  of  these  rules, 
nor  have  any  of  the  creeds  of  Protestants  dictated  any 
thing  which  binds  us  to  admit  them.  Safe  it  may  be,  pro- 
vided truth  admits  of  our  questioning  such  rules ;  and 
surely  it  must  be  safe,  if  truth  demands  that  we  should  re- 
ject them,  for  it  is  always  safe  and  proper  to  follow  truth. 

The  true  and  legitimate  principles  of  interpretation  de- 
pend on  no  individual  man,  no  sect,  no  party.  They  are 
independent  of  all  parties,  else  they  would  be  of  little  or  no 
value.  They  depend  on  no  niceties  of  philosophical  theo- 
ries, on  no  far  fetched  and  recondite  deductions,  on  no  ca- 
price of  fancy  or  imagination.  Were  they  so  dependent, 
they  would  be  of  little  value  even  to  the  learned,  and  of 
none  at  all  to  the  great  mass  of  men  who  read  the  Scrip- 
tures. 

The  origin  and  basis  of  all  true  hermeneutical  science 
are  the  reason  and  common  sense  of  men,  at  all  times  and 
in  all  ages,  applied  to  the  interpretation  of  language  either 
spoken  or  written.  The  faculty  of  interpreting  is  as  natu- 
ral as  the  faculty  of  speaking ;  and  the  rules  or  principles 
of  interpretation  are  formed  merely  by  observing  how  the 
faculty  of  exegesis  develops  itself.  All  science  of  interpre- 
tation so  called,  all  modes  of  expounding  language  pro- 
posed by  whomsoever  they  may  have  been,  (unless  indeed 
they  may  truly  be  the  result  of  inspiration),  which  are  not 
founded  on  the  simple  basis  described  above,  can  put  in  no 
just  claim  to  our  confidence,  and  have  no  right  to  exact 
our  homage. 


10  INTRODUCTION. 

A  scientific  digest  of  the  principles  of  interpretation,  if 
rightly  prepared,  would  be  made  in  the  like  way  as  a  gram- 
matical treatise.  In  the  latter  case,  the  usages  of  language 
as  to  the  forms  of  nouns,  verbs,  pronouns,  etc.,  are  first  ob- 
served ;  then  the  manner  in  which  sentences  are  construc- 
ted. A  simple  and  true  account  of  these  constitutes  what 
we  call  the  Grammar  of  any  language.  So  is  it,  also,  in 
respect  to  Hermeneuties  or  the  science  of  interpretation. 
The  general  usage  of  intelligent  men,  in  respect  to  inter- 
,  preting  the  language  which  they  hear  or  read,  is  first  ob- 
served, and  then  a  record  of  this  is  made  and  reduced  to  a 
scientific  form.     The  result  is,  a  booh  of  Hermeneuties. 

Nothing  can  be  more  certain,  than  that  language  was 
not  constructed  by  the  aid  of  grammar  as  a  science ;  for 
this  science  is  only  a  regular  digest  of  facts  observed  in  re- 
spect to  language  already  spoken,  with  some  obvious  de- 
ductions of  general  principles  from  these.  These  princi- 
ples the  rational  nature  of  man,  when  employed  in  speaking 
or  writing,  instinctively  follows.  They  are  not  matters  of 
calculation  and  of  consciously  designed  effort.  So  also  in 
Hermeneuties  ;  the  principles  of  interpreting  what  we  hear 
or  read,  are  instinctive ;  they  belong  to  our  rational  nature. 
Science  only  collects  and  arranges  them,  and  draws  de- 
ductions from  them. 
(j  If  this  account  be  correct  as  to  the  origin  of  the  science 
of  interpretation,  it  would  seem  to  follow,  that  any  princi- 
ple inconsistent  with  the  general  laws  which  our  nature 
and  reason  have  prescribed,  or  any  principle  beyond  the 
circle  of  that  prescription,  cannot  be  safely  trusted.  Should 
any  one  ask :  Why  do  the  proper  principles  of  Hermeneu- 
ties address  themselves  to  all  intelligent  men  with  an  im- 
perative force  ?  The  answer  is,  that  they  are  imperative, 
because  they  are  the  laws  of  our  communicative  nature 
and  faculties — because  we  find  the  basis  of  them  within 


DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY.  11 

ourselves,  and  are  conscious  therefore  of  their  binding  force. 
But  suppose  that  we  are  called  upon  to  give  our  assent  to 
a  rule  of  interpretation  which  is  not  founded  in  the  usages 
of  men,  nay  which  is  even  contrary  to  these  or  inconsistent 
with  them,  are  we  obliged  to  yield  assent  1  Just  as  much, 
I  answer,  as  we  should  be  to  yield  our  assent  to  a  proposi- 
tion in  grammar,  which  would  convert  into  a  rule  of  the 
English  language  the  patois  of  some  little  district  or  village. 
For  example ;  not  far  from  the  place  where  I  am  writing, 
is  a  small  collection  of  people,  who  have,  no  one  knows 
how  long,  been  accustomed  to  say  :  /  does ;  I  reads  this ; 
I  goes  to-morrow,  etc.  Shall  chis  be  inserted,  now,  as  an 
additional  rule  for  the  declension  and  use  of  verbs  in  the 
next  edition  of  Murray's  English  Grammar  ?  If  you  an- 
swer in  the  negative,  then  why  should  a  rule  of  interpreta- 
tion foreign  to  general  usage,  or  inconsistent  with  it,  be 
adopted  into  a  treatise  on  Hermeneutics  1 

§  2.  Occult  or  double  sense  op  prophecy. 

The  bearing  of  what  has  been  said,  the  reader  will 
speedily  perceive.  Our  first  question,  as  above  proposed, 
is,  whether  we  are  to  regard  the  position,  that  "  there  are 
many  occult  passages  in  the  prophecies,  which  are  preg- 
nant with  a  double  meaning,"  as  a  position  founded  in  the 
common-sense  principles  and  usages  of  mankind  as  to  the 
interpretation  of  language  1 

On  this  question  I  shall  now  proceed  to  make  a  few  re- 
marks ;  keeping  in  view,  however,  the  title  of  this  Essay, 
and  remembering  that  I  am  pledged  only  to  give  Hints, 
and  not  to  write  a  Thesaurus  of  hermeneutical  science. 

I  must  first  of  all  define  the  meaning  of  double  sense,  so 
that  the  subject  of  discussion  may  be  distinctly  understood. 

If  we  ascribe  to  any  passage  of  Scripture  a  literal,  ob- 


12  DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY. 

^  vious,  historical  sense,  and  interpret  it  as  conveying  the 
meaning  which  its  words  naturally  and  obviously  seem  to 
convey,  and  yet  at  the  same  time  ascribe  to  these  same 
words  another  meaning  which  is  occult  or  obscure,  but  still 
is  designed  to  be  conveyed  by  those  same  words,  we  then 
make  out  a  double  sense.  For  example ;  if  the  second  Psalm 
is  construed  as  a  description  of  the  coronation  of  David  or 
Solomon  on  the  hill  of  Zion,  and  all  that  is  there  said  be 
literally  and  historically  applied,  and  still  we  go  on  to  find 
in  this  same  Psalm,  that  is,  in  the  words  of  it,  a  secondary 
or  spiritual  sense  (as  it  is  often  named),  then  we  give  to 

,  it  a  double  sense.  We  first  ascribe  to  it  an  obvious  and 
historical  meaning,  endeavoring  to  make  this  out  in  the 
best  manner  that  we  can ;  and  then  we  suppose  that  there 
is  a  vTtovoioc,  i.  e.  an  occult  or  secondary  and  spiritual  mean- 
ing, by  virtue  of  which  the  Psalm  becomes  applicable  to 
Christ,  the  true  and  spiritual  Messiah.  So,  to  produce 
another  example,  if  we  interpret  the  45th  Psalm  as  an 
epithalamium  or  nuptial  song,  on  the  occasion  of  Solomon's 
marriage  with  a  foreign  princess,  and  endeavor  to  adapt 
every  thing  in  it  to  the  historical  sense  consequent  upon 
such  a  method  of  exegesis,  and  yet  after  we  have  executed 
this  task,  we  proceed  to  show,  or  at  least  endeavor  to  show, 
that  a  vnovoia  runs  through  the  whole,  by  virtue  of  which 
we  may  find  a  description  of  the  King  Messiah  and  of  his 
union  with  the  Church,  then  we  give  to  this  Psalm  a  dou- 
ble sense. 

The  question  now  before  us  is  :  Whether  this  is  a  rea- 
sonable, practicable,  well-grounded  method  of  interpreting 
the  Scriptures  1 

I  shall  not  stop  here  to  argue  with  those,  who,  finding 
difficulty  in  such  a  direct  and  palpably  occult  sense  through- 
out the  whole  of  those  two  Psalms,  expound  one  part  of 
the  second  Psalm,  for  example,  as  historically  descriptive 


X* 


DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY.  13 

of  the  literal  David,  and  the  other  part  as  belonging  to  the 
King  Messiah,  because  it  seems  incapable  of  a  literal  ap- 
plication to  David,  except  by  doing  violence  to  the  mean- 
ing of  the  words.  In  like  manner  do  they  expound  many 
other  portions  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  I  do  not  .  k)* 
stop  to  argue  with  such  expositors,  because  the  violence  \r%  %j 
which  is  done  to  sound  rules  of  interpretation,  by  arbitra-  /^^  . 
rily  introducing  two  subjects  of  the  writer's  discourse, 
when  he  plainly  and  obviously  presents  but  one,  is  so  great, 
that  but  little  danger  to  the  churches  can  ever  arise  from 
such  an  error.  It  is  so  plainly  a  trespass  against  the  laws 
of  our  nature  as  to  the  interpretation  of  language ;  it  is  so 
arbitrary  in  its  proceedings,  when  it  appropriates  one  part 
of  the  text  to  one  subject,  and  another  part,  which  is  indis- 
solubly  connected,  to  another  and  totally  different  subject ; 
that  nothing  like  a  general  persuasion  of  propriety  in  prac- 
tising such  a  method  of  interpretation  can  ever  be  brought 
about.  There  are  indeed  those  who  so  interpret  many 
passages  of  the  Old  Testament ;  there  have  been  such  in 
days  that  are  past ;  but,  as  I  have  already  said,  it  is  doing 
such  violence  against  the  first  principles  of  our  reason  as 
to  the  interpretation  of  language,  that  little  or  no  serious 
evil  can  well  be  supposed  to  flow  from  it.  The  imagina- 
tion of  some  readers  may  be  excited  and  pleased  by  the  in- 
genuity of  such  devices,  but  the  sober  understanding  and 
judgment  of  none  can  be  satisfied.  That  must  always  be 
a  wavering  and  uncertain  state  of  mind,  which  follows  the 
adoption  of  such  views ;  and  the  faith,  which  is  connected 
with  them,  must  be  feeble,  tottering,  doubtful,  and  mostly 
inoperative.  Nature  abused  and  driven  away  will  sooner 
or  later  return  and  claim  and  vindicate  her  rights.  The 
common  sense  of  men  must  ultimately  prevail  over  whim 
and  caprice. 
It  is  the  other  method  of  interpretation,  namely,  that 
2 


14  DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY. 

which  makes  a  primary  and  secondary  meaning  throughout 
such  passages  of  Scripture  as  are  supposed  to  relate  to  the 
new  dispensation,  that  has  been  the  usual  and  prevalent 
one  among  those  who  defend  the  vnovoia  or  occult  sense. 
This  then  must  be  at  least  briefly  examined. 

The  first  and  great  difficulty  with  this  scheme  of  interpre- 
tation is,  that  it  forsakes  and  sets  aside  the  common  laws  of 
language.  The  Bible  excepted,  in  no  book,  treatise,  epis- 
tle, discourse,  or  conversation,  ever  written,  published,  or 
addressed  by  any  one  man  to  his  fellow  beings,  (unless  in 
the  way  of  sport,  or  with  an  intention  to  deceive),  can  a 
double  sense  be  found.  There  are,  indeed,  charades,  enig- 
mas, phrases  with  a  double  entendre,  and  the  like,  perhaps, 
in  all  languages ;  there  have  been  abundance  of  heathen 
oracles  which  were  susceptible  of  two  interpretations ;  but 
among  even  all  these,  there  never  has  been,  and  there 
never  was  a  design  that  there  should  be,  but  one  sense  or 
meaning  in  reality.  Ambiguity  of  language  may  be,  and 
has  been,  designedly  resorted  to  in  order  to  mislead  the 
reader  or  hearer,  or  in  order  to  conceal  the  ignorance  of 
soothsayers,  or  provide  for  their  credit  amid  future  exi- 
gencies ;  but  this  is  quite  foreign  to  the  matter.of  a  serious 
and  honafide  double  meaning  of  words.  It  bears  no  com- 
parison with  the  alleged  vnovoia  in  question.  Nor  can 
we,  for  a  moment,  without  violating  the  dignity  and  sacred- 
ness  of  the  Scriptures,  suppose  that  the  inspired  writers 
are  to  be  compared  to  the  authors  of  riddles,  conundrums, 
enigmas,  and  ambiguous  heathen  oracles. 

How  then  can  we  make  a  rule  for  interpretation,  and 
apply  this  rule  to  the  Scriptures,  when  we  are  constrained 
to  acknowledge,  that  no  other  book  on  earth,  addressed  by 
intelligent  and  serious  men  to  the  reason  and  understand- 
ing of  their  fellow  beings,  can  bear  an  interpretation  by 
such  a  rule  1 


DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY.  15 

I  am  aware  of  the  usual  answer  to  this  question,  viz., 
that  "  the  Bible  is  a  divine  book,  and  that,  since  God  is 
the  real  author  of  it,  we  must  not  expect  to  place  it  on  the 
common  basis  of  other  books." 

But  how  can  we  be  satisfied  with  such  an  answer  ?  I 
am  indeed  fully  persuaded,  that  "  all  Scripture  is  given  by 
inspiration  of  God."  I  believe  the  Bible  to  be  of  divine 
authority ;  and  that  the  men  who  wrote  the  Scriptures  were 
under  divine  influence  which  guarded  them  against  error 
or  mistake,  when  they  composed  the  sacred  books.  I  have 
no  hesitation  in  admitting  and  defending  these  positions. 
But  I  cannot  deduce  from  them  any  thing  in  the  way  of 
defending  a  double  sense.  For  why  should  we  suppose,  be- 
cause the  Bible  is  a  divine  book,  that  its  manner,  style, 
or  diction,  differs  essentially  from  those  of  all  other  books? 
We  may  well  suppose  the  matter  to  transcend  the  discov- 
eries of  unenlightened  reason.  But  why  should  the  man- 
ner of  communicating  information  to  us,  differ  from  what 
is  usual  and  common  among  men  ?  Nay,  we  may  boldly 
advance  further,  and  ask,  how  the  Bible  could  be  what  it 
is,  viz. ,  a  revelation  from  God,  provided  its  diction  and  the 
principles  of  interpreting  it  are  to  be  regarded  as  entirely 
diverse  from  those  of  all  other  books.  What  can  be  more 
rational  or  plain  than  the  proposition,  that  when  God  speaks 
to  men  for  their  instruction,  he  speaks  by  man,  and  for 
men,  and  therefore  expects  to  be  understood.  Did  ever  a 
considerate  father  undertake  to  teach  his  children,  and  yet 
employ  language  the 'words  and  exegetical  principles  of 
which  were  entirely  beyond  their  cognizance?  And  when 
God  speaks  to  his  erring  children,  with  an  intention  to  en- 
lighten and  instruct  them,  and  to  reclaim  them  from  their 
wandering  ways,  does  he  employ  words  in  such  a  manner, 
that  no  analogy  drawn  from  human  methods  of  interpret- 


16  DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY. 

ing  language  can  enable  men  to  understand  what  he  com- 
municates 1 

Independently  of  the  disputed  question  before  us,  no 
man  on  earth  would  hesitate  a  moment  as  to  the  answer 
which  he  must  give.  A  revelation  must  be  intelligible, 
or  it  is  no  revelation.  It  must  be  made  in  language  that 
men  have  been  accustomed  to  use,  or  they  have  no  key  to 
it.  And  if  it  be  made  in  such  a  language,  then  it  must  be 
interpreted  by  the  common  rules  and  usages  of  language, 
else  there  is  no  key  again  to  the  meaning.  A  revelation 
in  the  peculiar  language  of  angels,  (if  they  can  be  supposed 
to  use  a  language),  would  have  no  meaning,  and  be  of  no 
use  to  men.  Who  possesses  the  appropriate  dictionary  or 
commentary  %  Who  has  studied  the  grammar  and  idiom  1 
A  revelation  (so  called)  to  men,  which  is  clothed  in  words 
not  employed  agreeably  to  the  usus  loquendi,  and  not  to  be 
interpreted  by  the  usual  principles  of  exegesis,  is  of  course 
no  revelation  at  all.  It  is  no  more  than  sounding  brass  or 
a  tinkling  cymbal ;  for  it  neither  gives  any  distinct,  articu- 
late, intelligible  sounds,  nor  does  it  represent  them  to  the 
eye.  It  is  in  vain,  therefore,  that  we  seek  for  any  rules, 
by  which  such  a  book  can  be  explained. 

Indeed,  the  moment  we  assume  that  there  is  in  the  Scrip- 
tures a  departure  from  the  usus  loquendi,  either  in  the 
choice  of  words,  the  construction  of  sentences,  or  the 
modes  of  interpretation,  that  moment  we  decide,  that  they 
are  no  revelation.  According  to  such  an  assumption,  more- 
over, a  necessity  would  of  course  be  presented  for  a  new 
inspiration,  in  order  to  find  out  and  comprehend  what  the 
authors  of  the  scriptural  books  meant.  But  if  a  new  inspi- 
ration be  needed,  then  of  what  use  or  advantage  are  the 
Scriptures,  or  have  they  ever  been,  to  men  1  It  would  be 
just  as  easy  to  communicate  a  revelation  de  novo  to  men, 


DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY.  17 

so  often  as  they  needed  one,  as  it  would  be  to  render  them 
inspired  in  order  that  they  might  understand  what  had 
been  already  communicated.  Nothing  then  could  be 
gained  by  such  a  Bible  as  the  case  before  us  supposes. 

We  must  therefore  either  concede  that  the  usual  laws 
of  language  are  to  be  applied  to  the  Bible,  or  else  that  it  is, 
and  can  be,  no  proper  revelation  to  men,  unless  they  are 
also  to  be  inspired  in  order  to  understand  it.  For  if  we 
suppose  words  are  to  be  employed,  and  sentences  con- 
structed and  interpreted,  in  a  manner  entirely  new  and 
different  from  all  that  has  hitherto  been  known  or  prac- 
tised, then  there  is  no  source  from  which  we  can  derive 
rules  to  interpret  the  Bible,  unless  it  be  one  which  is  super- 
natural and  miraculous.  Who  then  is  it,  that  has  a  just  ■) 
claim  to  supernatural  instruction  or  illumination  ?  Among 
all  the  contending  and  antagonist  parties,  some  of  whom 
have  virtually  claimed  such  inspiration,  who  is  in  the  right, 
and  is  to  be  heard  and  confided  in  with  respect  to  his 
claim  1 

These  views  may  serve  to  show,  that  we  must  give  up 
any  pursuit,  in  this  direction,  after  a  terra  Jirma  on  which 
we  can  with  confidence  fix  our  resting  place.  Either  God 
has  spoken  more  humano  by  men  to  men,  or  he  has  not 
spoken  what  they  can  with  any  good  assurance  pretend  to 
understand  without  miraculous  aid. 

A  divine  book  therefore,  must,  like  all  other  books,  be 
intelligible  in  order  to  be  useful ;  and  if  intelligible,  then 
it  must  conform  to  the  usus  loquendi,  both  in  respect  to 
the  choice  of  words  and  the  meaning  of  them.  How  then 
can  the  Scriptures  present  us  every  where  with  examples 
of  the  vnovoia  or  double  sense,  when  we  find,  and  expect  to 
find^such  a  sense  in  no  other  grave  book  on  the  face  of  all 
the  earth  1 

2* 


18  DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY. 

To  prevent  all  misunderstanding  of  what  I  mean,  how- 
ever, it  is  proper  to  add  here,  that  I  do  not  by  any  means 
design  to  detract  from  the  force  of  those  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture, which  declare  that  religious  experience  is  necessary  to 
a  full  and  spiritual  understanding  of  some  portions  of  the 
Bible.  What  is  true  of  other  books  must,  in  the  way  of 
analogy,  be  true  of  the  Bible  also.  We  do  not  expect  any 
one  fully  to  understand  Milton's  Paradise  Lost,  who  has 
little  or  nothing  of  a  poetical  taste.  We  can  not  suppose 
that  any  one,  who  is  destitute  of  attachment  to  mathemati- 
cal and  philosophical  science,  should  enter  fully  into  the 
comprehension  of  a  La  Place  or  a  Bowditch.  Even  so  with 
the  Scriptures  which  unfold  a  spiritual  and  experimental 
religion.  Religious  experience  is  necessary  to  the  full  and 
adequate  understanding  of  such  passages  as  relate  to  such 
experience.  But  all  this  is  far  enough  from  establishing  a 
double  sense.  In  truth,  all  this  is  only  in  the  way  of  anal- 
ogy with  regard  to  other  books  besides  the  Scriptures. 

If  now  there  were  no  other  obstacle  in  the  way  of  a  dou- 
ble sense,  except  that  it  is  entirely  different  from  and  op- 
posed to  all  analogy  in  respect  to  interpreting  language, 
this  one  consideration  would  come  near  to  settling  the  ques- 
tion. Nothing  but  divine  authority  for  such  a  mode  of  in- 
terpretation could  make  it  proper  to  practise  it. 

But  secondly,  there  are  other  difficulties  in  abundance; 
and  a  few  of  them  must  be  brought  into  notice.  The  very 
name,  vrtovoia  or  occult  sense,  shows  that  the  meaning  in 
question  is  not  deducible  from  or  by  the  laws  of  language; 
for  it  is  against  the  usage  of  all  times  and  nations  to  em- 
ploy language  in  such  a  way.  The  question  then  arises, 
of  course  :  How  is  an  occult  sense  to  be  ascertained? 

Lexicons,  grammars,  hermeneutics,  yea  vernacular  power 
over  a  language,  are  all  set  aside  by  the  process  that  we 
are  investigating.     To  what  arbiter  then  shall  we  repair  ? 


DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY.  19 

Who  or  what  is  to  decide,  so  that  we  may  put  confidence 
in  the  decision  ? 

Is  fancy,  or  imagination,  or  the  spirit  of  allegorizing,  to 
sit  on  the  throne  of  judgment  ?  These  judges,  as  I  appre- 
hend, are  hardly  grave  and  sober  and  considerate  enough 
to  be  trusted  with  so  weighty  and  difficult  questions.  Be- 
sides, inasmuch  as  the  matter  now  before  us  is  not  one 
within  the  province  of  common  sense,  but  one  sui  generis 
and  altogether  beyond  the  reach  of  scientific  principles,  who 
among  the  many  judges,  differing  widely  from  each  other, 
and  often  standing  opposed  to  each  other,  is  to  be  acknow- 
ledged as  the  Supreme  Court  ?  Candidates  for  this  honor, 
I  am  aware,  make  their  appearance  on  all  sides.  All, 
moreover,  possess  equal  authority,  unless  some  one  or 
more  can  show  that  he  or  they  are  inspired.  By  what 
rule  or  principle  shall  we  adjust  their  conflicting  claims  ? 
By  the  degree  of  learning  which  they  possess,  or  the 
strength  of  imagination,  or  the  dexterous  power  to  draw 
vivid  fancy-sketches,  or  the  depth  of  piety  1  None  of  these 
principles  of  judging  will  answer  our  purpose.  It  were 
easy  to  name  men  to  whom  some  one  of  these  characteris- 
tics belongs  in  a  high  degree,  who  nevertheless  have  in- 
dulged in  most  extravagant  phantasies  as  to  making  out 
the  double  or  second  sense  of  Scripture.  Some  examples 
of  this  nature  will  be  produced  in  the  sequel,  but  at  pre- 
sent we  are  merely  concerned  with  the  principle.  In  the 
usual  cases  of  exegetical  error,  we  have  a  test  to  which  an 
appeal  may  be  made,  and  this  is,  the  laws  and  usages  of 
language  in  general.  If  men  will  not  conform  to  these,  in 
their  criticisms,  then  one  may  justly  show  their  unreason- 
ableness, and  thus  deprive  their  exegesis  of  any  important 
influence.  But  in  the  case  before  us,  we  have  launched 
on  an  ocean  without  bottom  or  shore,  and  have  neither 
chart,  compass,  or  rudder.     How  we  are  safely  and  surely 


20  DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY. 

to  steer  our  course,  no  one,  so  far  as  my  knowledge  ex- 
tends, has  yet  shown  us. 

In  fact,  unless  we  say  that  every  man's  own  fancy  is  his 
rule,  in  the  matter  of  an  occult  sense,  I  wot  not  where  we 
are  to  find  a  rule.  Is  there  any  resort  except  to  inspira- 
tion 1  I  can  see  no  other.  If  then  we  should  resort  to  in- 
spiration as  the  guide — whose  inspiration,  or  alleged  inspi- 
ration, is  to  be  trusted  ?  I  am  aware  that  there  are  claim- 
ants, even  on  this  ground.  But  we  are  not  accustomed  to 
give  credit  to  claims  of  such  a  nature,  since  apostolic  times. 
When  interpreters  will  heal  the  sick,  and  raise  the  dead, 
and  cast  out  devils,  we  will  begin  to  bow  submissively  to 
their  alleged  authority  for  making  out  a  second  or  occult 
sense.  Until  that  time  has  arrived,  I  would  hope  that  we 
may  be  permitted  to  withhold  our  assent  from  their  deci- 
sions, provided  we  find  them  not  well  supported. 

From  its  very  nature,  an  occult  sense  is  one  which  lan- 
guage does  not  naturally  convey.  Of  course,  nothing  less 
than  the  authority  and  influence  which  dictated  any  partic- 
ular passage  of  Scripture,  can  with  certainty  inform  us 
what  the  hidden  or  secondary  sense  of  it  is. 

In  the  third  place,  if  such  a  principle  of  interpreting 
Scripture  be  admitted,  how  is  it  possible  to  ascertain  with- 
in what  bounds  it  shall  be  confined  ? 

By  some,  every  part  and  parcel  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
regarded  as  capable  of  a  double  sense ;  and  consequently, 
whenever  it  becomes  in  their  view  desirable,  on  any  ac- 
count, to  resort  to  such  a  sense,  they  hold  themselves  at 
liberty  to  do  so.  Nor  have  such  views  always  been  con- 
fined to  minds  of  the  lower  order,  or  to  men  of  little  know- 
ledge. Origen,  who  believed  in  the  eternity  of  matter,  in- 
terpreted the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  as  having  an  occult 
moral  or  spiritual  sense  throughout.  The  waters  of  the 
firmament  above  were  the  good  thoughts  and  desires  of 


DOUBLE  SENSE  OP  PROPHECY.  21 

men ;  those  in  the  depths  below,  the  bad  ones.  The  his- 
tory of  the  temptation  and  fall  of  Adam  and  Eve  he  regard- 
ed as  an  allegory,  in  order  to  set  forth  the  power  of  sin. 
Even  so  the  history  of  Sarah  and  Hagar.  The  Mosaic 
ritual  was  never  intended  to  be  taught  as  a  literal  and  his- 
toric reality,  but  in  all  its  parts  it  must  be  regarded  as  con- 
veying an  occult  sense.  Of  course  all  other  parts  of  the 
Scripture  may  be  subjected  to  a  similar  process;  but  more 
especially  the  Canticles.  Origen,  moreover,  has  had  many 
followers,  both  in  ancient  and  modern  times.  Who  has 
not  heard,  too,  of  Cocceius,  in  recent  times,  who,  with 
much  more  learning  than  Origen,  and  with  equal  strength 
of  fancy,  outdid  his  illustrious  predecessor  ?  The  piety 
and  learning,  which  were  united  in  Cocceius,  have  given 
great  authority  to  his  exegesis ;  and  throughout  all  Protes- 
tant Christendom,  even  down  to  the  present  hour,  there 
are  followers  of  his  mode  of  interpretation  to  be  found,  al- 
though with  great  varieties  both  in  the  theory  and  practice 
of  expounding. 

In  the  Roman  Catholic  church  the  practice  of  spiritual- 
izing, (as  the  developing  of  a  double  sense  is  called),  has 
been  even  more  general  and  more  unlimited  than  among 
the  Protestants.  The  Jesuit,  who  found  that  the  account 
of  the  creation  of  "  the  sun  to  rule  the  day,  and  of  the  moon 
and  stars  to  rule  the  night,"  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis, 
was  intended,  mystically  and  in  the  way  of  vnovoia,  to 
teach  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope  and  the  inferiority  of  kings 
and  cardinals,  was  merely  a  specimen  of  what  has  been 
very  common  in  that  church.  But  who  among  all  the 
Protestant  mystical  interpreters  can  refute  the  Jesuit  1  I 
know  of  no  argument  that  can  reach  him,  when  vnovoia  in 
the  Scriptures  is  once  fairly  and  fully  conceded.  He  has  as 
good  a  right  to  say,  that  Gen.  1 :  16  was  designed  to  con- 
vey an  occult  sense,  as  such  Protestants  have  to  aver,  that 


22  DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY, 

Ps.  ii.  xxii.  xlv.  ex.  and  other  parts  of  Scripture  have  a 
double  sense.  Who  is,  or  can  be,  the  final  arbiter  in  such 
cases  ? 

Once  admit  that  an  occult  or  mystic  second  sense  may 
be  given  to  any  passage  of  Scripture,  and  you  must  of 
course  concede  to  every  man  the  liberty  of  foisting  in  upon 
the  Scriptures  such  a  meaning,  whenever  and  wherever 
he  pleases.  If  he  is  abundant  and  excessive  in  his  phan- 
tasies, it  would  be  difficult  to  say  by  what  court  he  is  to  be 
tried ;  much  more  difficult  to  point  out  the  authority  which 
has  a  right  to  pass  final  sentence  of  condemnation.  In  a 
cause  to  be  tried,  where  there  is  neither  statute  nor  com- 
mon law  to  guide,  and  where  every  man  has  the  right  to 
do  what  seems  good  in  his  own  sight,  a  court  must  be 
somewhat  puzzled  in  making  out  a  final  and  authoritative 
decision. 

You  smile  when  one  tells  you  of  the  Jesuit,  who  preached 
seven  sermons  from  the  interjection  O !  yet  nothing  more 
was  necessary  even  to  double  this  number,  than  a  lively 
fancy,  and  the  power  of  spiritualizing  with  such  vigour 
as  to  make  out  a  variety  of  meanings  for  the  said  interjec- 
tion. You  smile  perhaps  still  more,  when  one  tells  you  of 
the  preacher,  who  selected  Cant.  1:  9  for  his  text,  (in  which 
the  bride  is  compared  to  the  horses  in  Pharaoh's  chariot), 
and  drew  from  its  occult  meanings  eighty-two  particulars  of 
resemblance  between  the  horses  and  the  church,  the  last 
of  which  was,  that  as  the  steeds  of  Pharaoh  moved  with  a 
steady  pace  over  both  hill  and  dale,  so  the  church  moves 
with  the  steady  gait  of  perseverance  through  the  wilderness 
which  she  is  traversing."  You  will  say  :  "  This  is  excessive ; 
this  is  ridiculous."  But  who  shall  prescribe  the  bounds  of 
fancy,  when  she  is  once  authorized  to  move  in  any  direc- 
tion she  pleases  1  If  you  should  suggest  that,  at  least,  im- 
agination must  be  bound  by  the  principle  of  producing 


DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY.  23 

something  useful,  in  such  a  development  of  occult  mean- 
ings ;  one  might  reply  by  asking  :  How  can  you  show  that 
the  seven  sermons  of  the  Jesuit  were  not  all  useful  ser- 
mons ?  Certainly  they  may  have  been  so.  And  as  to  the 
expatiator  upon  the  points  of  resemblance  between  Pha- 
raoh's horses  and  the  church,  at  most  we  cannot,  on  your 
ground,  condemn  him  unheard.  If  all  his  points  of  like- 
ness were  as  well  chosen  as  the  last,  he  surely  might  have 
important  subjects  before  him  for  discussion  ;  and  who  can 
aver,  that  he  did  not  gravely  and  profitably  discuss  them  1        j 

Indeed  this  plea  of  converting  the  Old  Testament  in  par- 
ticular to  useful  purposes,  proffered  by  Origen  and  in  vogue 
more  or  less  since  his  time,  may  be  urged  on  to  any  ex- 
tent that  fancy  or  imagination  may  judge  best.  Who  that 
is  familiar  with  the  history  of  interpretation  does  not  know 
that  many  a  grave  interpreter  has  spent  much  time  and 
pains  in  analyzing  the  proper  names  of  Scripture,  in  order 
to  evoke  from  them  some  mysterious  spirit  with  a  message 
from  a  terra  incognita  1  It  is  thus,  according  to  the  view  of 
such  expositors,  that  the  Scriptures  become  edifying ;  thus 
that  every  part  of  the  Old  Testament  becomes  lighted  up,  as 
it  were,  with  the  lamp  of  gospel  truth.  On  this  ground,  al- 
so, any  man  who  understands  Hebrew  as  well  as  Cocceius 
did,  (and  truly  he  was  no  ordinary  adept),  may  make  the 
first  chapter  of  the  first  book  of  Chronicles  as  edifying  as 
the  19th  Psalm,  or  equally  didactic  with  the  Sermon  on  the  / 
Mount.  In  the  first  verse  of  the  Chronicles,  the  name 
Adam  might  suggest,  not  unnaturally,  the  whole  history  of 
the  race  of  man,  with  all  their  attributes,  powers,  develop- 
ments, and  destiny.  Seth,  (i.  e.  rvi5  from  n"1^  to  put,  place, 
substitute,  etc.),  naturally  suggests  the  great  Redeemer  of 
men,  who  was  put  in  our  place,  or  substituted  for  us,  i.  e. 
"  he  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions  and  bruised  for 
our  iniquities ;"  and  so  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  vicarious 


24  DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY. 

sufferings  of  Christ  is  suggested  to  our  consideration  by 
the  name  Seth.  Enosh  ("iBi3N  from  tcaa  to  be  sick)  of 
course  teaches  us  the  doctrine  of  man's  frail  and  dying 
state ;  and  by  indirect  consequence  it  reminds  us  of  all  the 
duties  which  are  attendant  upon  such  a  state  and  naturally 
connected  with  it — a  text,  therefore,  of  vast  meaning,  even 
of  boundless  import.  And  so  we  might  pass  on  through 
all  the  genealogical  tables  in  the  first  book  of  the  Chroni- 
cles ;  which,  when  thus  treated,  instead  of  being  mere 
genealogies  in  which  the  church  has  now  no  very  special 
interest,  would  then  become  pregnant  with  a  divine  and 
transcendental  meaning,  and  be  filled,  as  one  might  almost 
say,  "  with  the  fulness  of  God."  In  this  way,  too,  we  can 
demonstrate,  that  all  Scripture  is  profitable  for  doctrine 
and /"or  instruction  in  righteousness.  Who  then  can  forbid 
us  to  engage  in  such  an  excellent  work  as  this  ?  Who  can 
bid  us  to  stop,  when  thus  bending  all  our  powers  to  vindi- 
cate the  divine  authority  and  excellence  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  to  show  that  no  other  book  on  earth  can  bear  compar- 
ison with  them,  as  to  adaptedness  for  conveying,  at  all 
times  and  in  every  possible  manner,  both  doctrine  and 
practical  instruction  1  Even  the  least  important  part  of 
them,  (if  indeed  it  is  lawful  to  say  that  any  one  part  is  less 
important  than  another),  has  more  of  significance,  more 
that  is  adapted  to  our  edification,  than  all  the  other  books 
which  the  world  contains. 

If  now  to  all  this  I  should  add  large  professions  of  most 
sincere  and  ardent  desires  to  glorify  God  by  such  a  view 
of  the  Scriptures,  and  to  convince  men  how  he  has  indeed 
"  magnified  his  word  above  all  his  name ;"  if  I  should,  at 
the  same  time,  bestow  degrading  epithets  on  all  those  who 
deny  the  supernatural  fulness  of  meaning  and  the  second- 
ary and  spiritual  sense  of  the  Scriptures,  and  insert  in  eve- 
ry convenient  place  an  inuendo  that  they  are  fast  verging 


DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY.  25 

toward  rationalism ;  should  I  not  secure  ah  attentive  hear- 
ing of  many,  yea  very  many,  among  both  laity  and  clergy? 
This,  or  something  of  much  the  same  tenor,  has  often 
been  done ;  it  doubtless  will  be  often  repeated  in  future 
time.  Nor  is  the  man  who  does  this,  at  all  within  the 
grasp  of  his  mystic  brethren,  who  call  themselves  more 
sober.  There  is,  as  we  have  seen,  no  court  of  appeal. 
And  the  man  who  outgoes  all  his  competitors  in  the  exten- 
sion of  the  spiritual  or  occult  sense  of  the  Scriptures,  pro- 
vided the  meanings  which  he  gives  may  tend  to  edification, 
is  of  course  entitled  to  a  precedence  in  the  great  and  good 
work  (as  many  deem  it)  of  rendering  the  Bible  edifying 
every  where  and  to  the  highest  degree  ;  and  all  this,  too,  in 
such  a  way  as  to  show  that  it  is  a  book  unlike  all  other 
books,  and  has  a  fulness  of  doctrine  and  instruction  which 
are  worthy  of  a  God,  and  which  God  only  could  impart  to 
it.  On  the  ground  of  double  or  occult  sense,  the  right  of 
such  a  man  to  this  claim  cannot  be  disproved. 

The  advocates  for  a  double  sense  or  spiritualizing  will 
doubtless  reply  to  all  this,  that  '  the  abuse  of  a  thing  is  no 
good  argument  against  the  use  of  it/  In  most  cases  this  is 
certainly  to  be  conceded.  But  if  a  thing  is  of  such  a  na- 
ture that  it  is  all  abuse,  and  must  be  so,  it  is  a  good  argu- 
ment against  it.  Of  such  a  nature  I  must  believe  the  prac- 
tice of  mystical  interpreters  to  be.  John  Bunyan  was  a 
man  who  did  not  lack  genius  or  piety.  Yet  he  has  given 
to  the  world  a  treatise  in  which  he  undertakes  to  show,  that 
not  only  the  temple  with  its  solemn  ritual  and  impressive 
service  was  significant  of  good  things  to  come,  but  that  the 
parts  all  and  singular  of  the  same  were  in  like  manner  sig- 
nificant. The  vases,  the  censers,  the  trays,  the  snuffers, 
yea  the  snuff  itself  of  the  lamps — all,  all  had  an  important 
spiritual  meaning.  Will  you  say,  that  Bunyan  was  dream- 
ing a  second  time  here,  to  much  less  purpose  than  his  first 
3 


26  DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY. 

dream  which  has  rendered  him  immortal  ?  If  you  do,  it 
were  easy  to  refer  you  to  Origen,  to  Jerome  even,  to  Au- 
gustine, to  Cocceius,  to  Jones  of  Nayland,  and  to  a  host  of 
other  men  distinguished  for  talents  and  piety,  who  have 
wandered  scarcely  less  into  dreaming  regions  than  Bunyan. 
When  we  are  gravely  told,  in  many  a  Commentary,  that 
in  the  parable  of  the  good  Samaritan,  the  man  that  travelled 
from  Jerusalem  to  Jericho  through  the  wilderness,  and  fell 
among  thieves  and  was  robbed  and  wounded,  represents 
Adam  and  his  posterity  travelling  through  the  wilderness 
of  this  world  and  robbed  and  wounded  by  Satan ;  that  the 
priest  and  Levite,  who  passed  by  without  helping  him,  re- 
present the  law  which  cannot  save  the  sinner  and  good 
works  and  ceremonial  observances  which  cannot  help  him ; 
that  the  good  Samaritan  is  Christ ;  that  the  oil  and  wine 
are  the  forgiveness  and  grace  of  the  gospel ;  and  that  the 
gratuitous  work  of  helping  the  wounded  man  is  a  lively 
emblem  of  the  Redeemer's  gratuitous  work  in  respect  to 
sinners — all  this,  we  are  gravely  assured,  is  edifying, 
it  makes  the  Scriptures  profitable  for  doctrine,  and  conse- 
quently no  valid  objection  can  be  made  against  it.  Be  it 
so  then  ;  but  why  stop  here  ?  Why  choose  out  those  parts 
of  the  parable  which  may  afford  room  for  tracing  imagina- 
ry resemblances,  and  leave  the  rest  as  being  of  no  im- 
portant significance?  What  means  the  setting  of  the 
wounded  man  upon  the  ass ;  the  bringing  him  to  an  inn ; 
the  two  pence  given  to  the  host ;  the  promise  of  more  on 
the  return  of  the  Samaritan?  By  what  rule  or  principle 
does  the  interpreter  stop  short  of  these,  and  leave  them  out 
of  the  category  of  "  things  profitable  for  doctrine?"  Is  it 
not  the  useful,  the  edifying,  which  makes  this  mode  of 
spiritualizing  lawful  ?  If  so,  then  we  may  vindicate  those, 
who  out  of  Adam,  Seth,  Enosh,  (1  Chron.  1:  1),  bring  out 
the  greatest  and  most  important  of  all  gospel-truths  and 


DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY.  27 

the  most  important  of  all  the  precepts  of  practical  piety. 
In  my  apprehension,  at  least,  the  latter  have  as  good  a 
claim  to  our  confidence  as  the  interpreters  of  the  parable 
of  the  good  Samaritan. 

We  have  heard  of  a  preacher,  who  selected  from  Ezra 
1:  9  the  clause  nine  and  twenty  knives,  for  a  text.  How 
he  made  this  profitable  for  doctrine,  we  are  not  told.  We 
have  read  of  still  more  extraordinary  spiritualizing.  The 
fact  to  which  we  refer  is  briefly  this  :  in  Gen.  29:  2  it  is 
said,  that  Jacob  "  looked,  and  behold  a  well  in  the  field." 
The  spiritual  instruction,  or  rather  consolation,  deducible 
from  this  was  expressed  by  the  preaching  interpreter  in 
the  following  pathetic  exclamation  :  "  What  a  mercy  that 
the  field  was  not  in  the  well !" 

But  enough  of  examples.  And  if  I  am  again  told,  as  I 
doubtless  shall  be,  that  these  only  serve  to  expose  the  abuse 
of  the  vjzovoicc ;  I  must  again  reply  by  asking  the  advocate 
of  the  principle  in  question  to  point  me  to  the  tribunal, 
which  decides,  or  has  authority  to  decide,  where  the  limits 
of  such  a  practice  must  be  drawn. 

Once  more  ;  I  am  not  able  to  satisfy  my  own  mind,  why 
merely  a  double  sense  should  be  assigned  to  various  pas- 
sages of  Scripture.  Why  not  three,  seven,  ten,  or  (with 
the  Jewish  Rabbies)  forty-nine  senses  1  Fancy  can  make 
out  all  these,  with  little  or  no  difficulty.  Why  not  give  to 
the  Scripture,  as  Cocceius  maintained  we  should  do,  all 
the  meanings  of  which  it  is  in  any  way  capable  of  bearing  ? 

The  only  pertinent  answer  that  can  be  made  to  this  is, 
that  it  is  not  usual,  even  where  fancy  is  permitted  to  play 
a  conspicuous  part  in  the  interpretation  of  ambiguous  say- 
ings, to  make  out  more  than  a  double  sense ;  consequently 
it  would  be  against  usage  to  assign  so  many  meanings  to 
the  Scripture.  But  this  answer  will  hardly  suffice.  It  is 
not  usual,  in  respect  to  any  grave  and  honest  discourse,  to 


28  DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY. 

make  out  more  than  one  meaning  to  words ;  but  the  advo- 
cates of  double  sense  have  brought  us  into  company  with 
the  interpreters  of  enigmas,  charades,  conundrums,  and 
heathen  oracles  of  double  entendre,  and  invited  us  to  keep 
pace  with  them.  If  we  must  do  so,  then  why  may  we  not 
at  least  make  out  this  distinctive  claim  for  the  Scriptures, 
viz.  that  their  superiority  to  every  thing  of  such  an  equivo- 
cal nature  is  manifest,  by  the  fact  that  the  language  of 
the  inspired  books  is  capable  of  bearing  all  possible  senses, 
be  they  more  or  less  1  If  the  divine  origin  of  the  Bible 
cannot  be  proved  in  this  manner,  it  must  be  conceded  that 
we  may  at  least  show,  in  such  a  way,  that  it  is  a  book  dif- 
ferent from  all  others  which  the  world  contains. 

Let  me  add,  in  the  fifth  place,  that  the  mode  of  interpre- 
tation against  which  I  am  contending,  can  never  be  relied,  on 
for  the  establishment  of  any  scriptural  doctrine  or  precept. 

Few,  if  any,  of  the  advocates  of  double  sense  will  ven- 
ture to  assert,  that  we  can  depend  on  an  occult  sense  to 
establish  any  position  of  importance.  The  most  that  is 
usually  claimed  for  this  method  of  interpretation  is,  that  it 
pleases  the  fancy,  excites  and  gratifies  the  imagination,  and 
thus  makes  the  truth  more  agreeable  to  many  minds.  Yet 
the  occult  meaning,  in  order  to  have  any  degree  of  confi- 
dence reposed  in  it,  must  harmonize  with  those  texts  of 
Scripture  which  are  plain  and  direct.  Indeed,  the  bare 
statement  of  the  whole  matter  affords  evidence  enough, 
that  we  can  never  pretend  to  rely  on  an  occult  meaning  as 
the  foundation  of  an  argument,  by  which  any,  even  the 
least  important,  position  is  established.  The  simple  ques- 
tion is,  then,  whether  we  shall  resort  to  allegorizing  or 
spiritualizing,  merely  to  gratify  the  fancy,  or  amuse  the 
imagination,  or  to  allure  by  ingenuity  in  drawing  supposed 
resemblances.  But  on  this  question  why  should  there  be 
any  doubt?     The  Bible  is  a  book  of  import  much  too 


DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY.  MM 

grave  to  be  treated  in  this  manner.  God,  and  heaven,  and 
hell,  and  never-dying  souls,  are  no  originals  for  fancy  pic- 
tures and  amusing  sketches.  It  is  a  degradation  of  the  aw- 
ful majesty  of  Scripture  to  treat  it  in  this  way.  Were  I  to 
speak  what  my  feelings  prompt  me  to  do,  I  should  say,  that 
it  is  a  profanation  of  its  holy  contents.  Where  romance 
and  fiction  and  conceit  and  conjecture  and  enigma  are  all 
to  be  mixed  up  with  instruction  of  the  most  serious  and 
important  character  which  can  be  addressed  to  human  be- 
ings, what  mind  that  possesses  a  refined  taste  and  delicate 
sensibility  will  not  be  revolted  and  displeased  with  such  a 
procedure  1 

I  repeat  what  has  been  already  said  :  When  Gvd  speaks 
to  men,  he  speaks  more  humano  by  men  and  for  men.  View- 
ed in  this  light,  the  poetry  of  the  Scriptures  is  poetry  with 
all  its  characteristics ;  the  prose  is  prose ;  the  genealogies 
are  what  they  purport  to  be;  the  historic  narrations  are 
histories ;  the  psalms  are  songs  of  praise ;  the  proverbs  are 
maxims  or  apothegms ;  the  plans  of  the  tabernacle  and  tem- 
ple, with  all  their  apparatus,  are  plans  for  building  sanctua- 
ries and  furnishing  them  ;  prophecy  is  prediction ;  preach- 
ing is  homiletic ;  allegory  is  allegory,  and  parable  is  para- 
ble. If  there  be  any  thing  that  is  certain,  as  to  the  gene- 
ral principles  of  interpretation  respecting  the  Scriptures, 
all  this  is  certain.  If  the  Bible  is  not  to  be  interpreted 
in  such  a  manner,  i.  e.  in  accordance  with  these  posi- 
tions, then  we  must  give  up  all  hope  of  coming  to  the  know-  . 
ledge  of  any  rules  by  which  it  can  be  interpreted. 

It  is  well  that  the  public  taste  is  at  last  putting  its  hand 
more  and  more  upon  the  extravagance  of  days  that  are  past, 
in  respect  to  the  occult  sense  of  many  portions  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. But  in  the  department  of  prophecy,  with  which  I 
am  particularly  concerned  at  present,  there  is  yet  great  lati- 
tude given  and  taken  in  regard  to  this  matter.  In  the 
3* 


30  DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY. 

^  Psalms,  and  indeed  in  a  multitude  of  passages  in  the  Pro- 
phets, the  Pentateuch,  and  all  parts  of  the  Scripture,  there 
are  expositors  even  now  who  defend  the  vnovoia,  i.  e.  they 
find  a  literal  and  historic  sense  which  answered  in  former 
days  a  temporary  purpose,  and  also  an  occult  sense,  wrap- 
ped up  or  involved  in  the  drapery  of  the  historic  sense,  and 
discernible  only  when  this  is  unrolled  and  laid  aside.  They 
are  serious  in  the  belief,  that  they  have  a  right  to  interpret 
in  this  manner ;  and  although  few  will  venture  to  meet  a 
discussion  of  the  subject  on  the  ground  of  simple  herme- 
neutics,  (for  on  this  ground  their  cause  must  surely  fail), 
yet  they  appeal,  one  and  all,  to  the  usage  and  authority  of 
the  New  Testament  writers,  and  aver,  that  whatever  diffi- 
culties may  be  made  out  on  the  grounds  of  hermeneutical 
science,  as  applicable  to  writings  merely  of  human  origin, 
yet  it  is  clear  that  the  Evangelists  and  other  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  did  admit  and  adopt  a  double  sense  of  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures,  and,  consequently,  we  are  at  liberty  to 
a/  do  the  same. 

This  for  substance  has  been  so  long  and  so  often  al- 
leged, in  the  way  of  defending  the  occult  sense  of  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures,  and  it  is  moreover,  apparently,  so 
weighty  an  argument  in  its  favor,  that  I  must  of  necessity 
take  it  into  serious  consideration. 

I  might  remark,  at  the  outset,  that  were  the  facts  true, 
in  the  sense  in  which  they  are  usually  alleged,  it  would  not 
follow  of  course,  that  we  are  entitled  to  assign  an  occult 
sense  to  any  and  every  passage  of  Scripture,  where  we  may 
merely  of  ourselves  think  it  proper  to  do  so.  We  take  the 
ground  that  the  New  Testament  writers  were  inspired ; 
and  if  they  were,  then  it  is  possible  that  they  might  be  en- 
lightened by  inspiration  so  as  to  give  a  meaning  to  some 
parts  of  the  Old  Testament  Scripture,  which  is  and  must 
be  occult  in  itself  to  all  who  are  uninspired.     We  may  in- 


DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY.  31 

deed  now  follow  in  their  steps,  in  those  cases  where  they 
have  given  us  an  occult  sense ;  we  may  give  credit  to  their 
authority,  and  so  trust  them  as  our  guides ;  but  we  can  go, 
in  such  a  case,  no  further  than  they  lead  the  way.  Inspi- 
ration was  necessary  to  reveal  an  occult  sense  to  them ; 
and  as  we  are  not  inspired,  so  we  cannot  give  the  occult 
sense  of  passages  which  they  have  not  explained.  In  the 
case  supposed,  it  was  not  fancy,  imagination,  conceit, 
which  led  them  to  play  upon  words  and  to  give  to  them 
mysterious  and  conjectural  meanings.  If  they  have  actually 
exhibited  the  occult  sense  it  any  case,  it  must  of  course 
have  been  by  virtue  of  light  from  above. 

It  would  be  gaining  not  a  little,  if  even  so  much  should 
be  admitted  by  all.  We  should  then,  at  least,  be  kept  with- 
in bounds  very  narrow  in  comparison  with  those  which 
many  interpreters  have  set  up.  One  simple  rule  would 
suffice ;  and  this  would  be,  that  we  must  merely  follow  on 
in  the  same  path  in  which  the  New  Testament  writers 
have  taken  the  lead,  and  not  strike  out  new  ways  or  by- 
paths for  ourselves. 

But  a  more  important  view  of  this  subject  remains  to  be 
taken :  Have  the  New  Testament  writers  made  out,  in  any 
case,  a  double  sense  to  the  words  of  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures  ? 

A  moderate  volume  could  be  easily  filled  with  the  discus- 
sion of  this  question ;  but  necessity  obliges  me  to  comprise 
what  I  now  have  to  say  in  a  few  paragraphs. 

I  do  not  find  but  two  ways  in  which  the  Jewish  Scrip- 
tures are  employed  in  the  New  Testament,  so  far  as  the  sub- 
ject of  prediction  or  prophecy  is  concerned.  The  first  is 
too  plain  to  need  any  particular  comment ;  it  is  where  a 
passage  in  the  Old  Testament  is  simply  and  directly  pro- 
phetic, and  is  appealed  to  or  is  cited  as  merely  prophetic. 
Such  are  the  passages,  as  I  must  believe,  cited  from  Is. 


/ 


y 


32  DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY. 

liii.  Ps.  ii.  xvi.  xxii.  xlv.  ex.,  and  many  other  places. 
We  need  not,  with  Cocceius,  bishop  Home,  and  other 
writers  of  this  description,  find  Christ  every  where  in  the 
Old  Testament;  nor  need  we,  as  has  been  said  of  Grotius, 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  he  is  to  be  found  no  where  in 
it.  There  is  some  middle  path  between  these  extremes. 
If  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  have  not  predicted  a  Mes- 
siah, and  have  not  indeed  often  predicted  him,  then  the 
persuasion  and  the  reasoning  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  in 
respect  to  this  subject,  have  no  good  foundation  on  which 
they  can  rest;  If  they  have  foretold  a  Messiah,  why  not 
leave  them  to  speak  out  this  great  truth  plainly,  simply, 
without  any  vnovoia  or  occult  sense !  For  example ;  why, 
in  the  second  and  45th  Psalms,  should  we  suppose  the  coro- 
nation of  David  and  the  marriage  of  Solomon  to  be  de- 
scribed or  sung,  by  the  first  and  literal  sense  of  the  words, 
and  then  that  the  Messiah  is  obscurely  hinted  at  in  the 
way  of  an  occult  sense  ?  Is  not  one  greater  than  David  to 
be  found  in  the  second  Psalm,  and  greater  than  Solomon 
in  the  forty-fifth  1  So  I  must  think.  David  was  not  crown- 
ed king  on  the  holy  hill  of  Zion  ;  nor  was  he  begotten  of 
God  on  the  day  of  coronation  ;  nor  had  he  the  uttermost 
parts  of  the  earth  for  his  possession ;  nor  were  his  enemies 
broken  in  pieces  like  a  potter's  vessel ;  nor  are  all  men  in- 
vited to  put  their  trust  in  him.  Solomon  was  not  most 
mighty  in  war ;  nor  did  his  right  hand  teach  terrible  things ; 
nor  was  his  throne  for  ever  and  ever ;  nor  was  he  address- 
ed by  the  title  God  (dvi/Vn) ;  nor  did  his  children  become 
princes  in  all  the  earth ;  nor  are  all  people  exhorted  to 
praise  him  forever  and  ever.  Truly  a  greater  than  David 
or  Solomon  is  here.  No  double  sense  is  needed ;  none  is 
even  admissible.  What  advantage,  in  any  respect,  can  be 
gained  by  the  admission  of  one  1 

All  that  can  with  strict  propriety  be  said  of  these,  and 


DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY.  33 

of  many  other  like  cases,  is  simply,  that  the  sacred  writers 
of  ancient  times,  when  they  come  to  disclose  a  future  king 
Messiah  and  his  extended  and  peaceful  reign,  borrow  the 
costume  of  their  picture  from  objects  then  before  their  own 
minds  and  those  of  their  readers.  From  David  and  Solo- 
mon traits  of  resemblance  are  borrowed,  in  order  to  com- 
plete the  sketch  of  a  future  and  spiritual  king.  Not  mere 
choice,  but  absolute  necessity  dictated  this.  How  could 
the  future  be  disclosed,  except  by  language  borrowed  from 
that  in  present  use,  and  by  likenesses  drawn  from  present 
objects  ?  It  is  surely  no  good  reason  for  finding  a  double 
sense,  that  a  prophet  has  undertaken  to  disclose  the  future, 
by  presenting  it  through  similitudes  of  the  present  1 

This  leads  me  to  consider  a  second  method  in  which  the 
New  Testament  writers  have  cited  and  employed  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Old  Testament,  viz.  by  suggesting  resem- 
blances between^past  and  future  events.  fr 

This  includes  all  which  is  properly  called  type  in  the 
Old  Testament.  Type  means  a  resemblance  of  two  things, 
not  an  occult  sense  of  words.  The  epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
has  shown  us,  that  many  things  under  the  old  dispensation 
were,  and  were  designed  to  be,  typical,  i.  e.  they  bore  a 
resemblance  to  objects  or  transactions  of  the  new  dispen- 
sation. It  is  through  the  medium  of  this  epistle  that  we 
come  more  fully  to  learn,  that  many  of  the  Jewish  religious 
rites  were  typical.  Indeed,  we  cannot  well  conceive  how 
it  should  be  otherwise.  God  has  no  pleasure  in  rites, 
forms,  ceremonies,  and  sacrifices,  in  themselves  considered, 
and  for  their  own  sake.  To  be  worthy  of  him,  they  must 
shadow  forth  something  of  the  future  and  Messianic  dis-  fy 
pensation.  Thus  the  paschal-lamb  was  a  type  of  the  Lamb 
of  God  which  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world ;  the  office 
of  the  high-priest  was  typical  of  the  atoning  and  propitia- 
tory office  of  Christ ;  and  the  like  as  to  many  other  things.  " 


34  DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY. 

But  in  all  these  cases,  and  in  all  like  to  them,  there  is 
V  nothing  of  a  double  sense  to  words.  The  words  which 
describe  the  rites,  sacrifices,  or  occurrences,  of  the  ancient 
dispensation,  are  to  be  interpreted  in  their  plain,  usual, 
historical  sense ;  for  example,  the  institution  of  the  passo- 
ver  in  Ex.  xn.  When  this  is  done,  an  interpreter,  so  far 
as  the  exegesis  of  mere  language  is  concerned,  has  fully  dis- 
^  charged  his  duty.  But  another  question  may  arise,  subse- 
quent to  this,  viz.,  Whether  the  things  thus  described  do 
not  afford  resemblances  of  future  things  under  the  new 
dispensation  ?  Christ  and  the  apostles  have  decided  that 
they  do ;  and  even  more  than  this  is  apparently  decided,  for 
they  seem  plainly  to  teach  us,  that  many  of  the  ancient 
rites,  and  transactions,  and  persons  also,  were  designed  to 
be  types  of  good  things  to  come.  It  is  this  which  makes 
them  truly  types.  Surely  it  is  not  every  resemblance  which 
fancy  can  draw,  between  an  earlier  and  later  occurrence 
or  personage,  that  constitutes  a  type  in  a  true  and  scriptu- 
ral sense.     We  must  limit  types  of  this  character  only  to 

'  such  things  or  persons,  as  were  designed  to  afford  resem- 
blances that  might  convey  instruction  to  the  ancient  church. 
.,  Will  any  one,  who  believes  in  the  divine  authority  of  the 
New  Testament,  call  in  question  the  fact,  that  the  paschal 
lamb,  the  Jewish  sacrifices  at  large,  the  high-priest's  office, 
and  other  things  of  the  like  nature,  were  designedly  em- 
blems of  the  future  ?  If  any  do  question  this,  I  am  not 
among  the  number.  But  then,  in  all  these  cases  of  types, 
there  is  only  an  emblem  of  the  future,  or  a  resemblance  of 
something  future,  in  the  things  ox  persons  of  ancient  days, 
and  no  second  sense  to  words  which  describe  those  things. 
If,  moreover,  the  Jewish  dispensation  was  designed  to  be 
preparatory  to  the  Christian  one,  what  less  could  be  ra- 
tionally expected  than  that  there  would  be  such  a  signifi- 

</    cancy  in  many  of  its  institutions  1 


DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY.  35 

On  the  same  ground,  for  substance,  we  may  place  a 
class  of  texts  cited  in  the  New  Testament,  which  have  gen- 
erally been  regarded  as  the  most  difficult  of  all.  Let  us 
select  an  example  which  comprises  in  itself  all  the  serious 
difficulties  that  can  attend  the  subject,  in  any  part  of  the 
New  Testament.  In  Matt.  2:  15,  the  writer  refers  to  the 
flight  of  Joseph  and  Mary  with  the  infant  Jesus  to  Egypt, 
and  their  subsequent  departure  from  that  country  in  order 
to  go  again  to  Palestine.  He  appeals,  for  confirmation  of  / 
the  fact  that  all  these  arrangements  were  under  the  guid- 
ance of  a  superintending  power,  to  a  passage  in  Hosea  11: 
1,  which  says  :  "  When  Israel  was  a  child  I  loved  him,  and 
called  my  Son  out  of  Egypt."  As  written  by  the  prophet 
this  is  no  part  of  a  prediction,  and  is  not  designed  to  be 
one,  but  it  is  a  simple  declaration  of  a  historical  truth. 
Yet  the  Evangelist  says,  that  when  Jesus  went  down  to 
Egypt,  and  was  to  be  recalled  from  that  country,  that  all 
this  was  a  fulfilment  (nXrjQwaig)  of  what  the  prophet  Hosea 
had  said,  in  the  passage  just  quoted.  What  then  are  the 
elements  of  this  case,  and  of  all  others  like  to  it  ?  Simply  • 
these;  viz.,  that  something  transacted,  done,  performed  in 
former  days,  or  any  event  that  happened,  if  they  found  an 
antitype  or  corresponding  resemblance  under  the  new  dis- 
pensation, might  be  said  to  have  a  nkijowaig,  i.  e.  a  fulfil- 
ment. But  who  that  ever  has  studied  the  New  Testament 
references  to  the  ancient  Scriptures,  does  not  know  that 
the  words  fulfilment  and  fulfil  have  a  wide  latitude  of  mean- 
ing 1  Any  thing  which  happened  or  was  done  in  ancient 
times,  and  which  for  substance  is  repeated  or  takes  place 
again  under  the  new  dispensation  ;  any  thing  later  which 
presents  a  lively  resemblance  to  another  and  earlier  thing; 
may  be,  and  often  is,  spoken  of  as  a  nXygaxng  of  that  earlier  /t 
thing.     It  matters  not,  now,  whether  the  word  by  critical 


36  DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY. 

and  classical  usage  would  bear  this  latitude  of  sense. 
Enough  that  such  is  New  Testament  usage. 

God  often  calls  ancient  Israel  his  child,  his  son,  because 
he  was  a  special  object  of  his  love.  The  Hebrews  were 
exiles  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  they  were  delivered  from  that 
state  by  a  special  providence,  and  brought  to  Palestine,  the 
promised  land.  Jesus,  the  beloved  Son  of  God  in  a  higher 
and  nobler  sense,  was  an  exile  in  Egypt,  he  was  delivered 
from  this  state  and  brought  to  Palestine — and  all  by  a  spe- 
cial Providence.  Angels  interposed  to  accomplish  his  de- 
liverance. Here  then  was  a  case,  in  which  the  Son  of 
God  in  whom  he  was  well  pleased  was  brought  to  Egypt, 
and  out  of  Egypt,  in  a  manner  not  unlike  to  that  recorded 
in  ancient  history.  What  happened  in  later  times,  hap- 
pened in  a  higher  and  nobler  sense  than  what  happened  in 
early  times.  And  might  it  not  be  said,  on  this  account, 
that  there  was  in  this  case  a  TiXrjQacrig  ?  It  is  said  ;  and 
why  not  justly  said,  and  in  a  way  full  of  meaning  ! 

But  even  here  there  is  no  occult  sense  of  words,  in  the 
prophet.  They  are  mere  plain,  simple,  historical  words. 
Yet  the  events  to  which  they  refer,  bear  a  resemblance  to 
subsequent  events  under  the  new  dispensation  ;  and  on  this 
account  the  latter  are  named  a  filing-  up  or  fulfilment  of 
the  former.  It  is  the  want  of  right  views  as  to  the  use  of 
nlrjqoicng  and  m\r\Qw&ri  in  the  New  Testament,  which  has 
misled  so  many  interpreters  of  its  quotations. 

In  a  way  not  unlike  to  this  last  method  of  applying  Old 
Testament  Scriptures,  we  are  accustomed  continually  to 
quote  and  apply  maxims  and  sentiments  frOm  the  classic 
writers,  without  ever  supposing  that  the  passages  which 
we  quote  were  actual  predictions.  Like  occurrences  or 
exigencies  call  to  mind  ancient  declarations  or  narrations 
respecting  similar  events  or  occurrences,  and  those  de- 


DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY.  37 

clarations  are  therefore  cited  as  applicable  to  the  later 
events.  Thus,  to  introduce  another  conspicuous  example, 
the  69th  Psalm  affords  the  means  of  a  striking  illustration. 
David  here  describes,  in  very  vivid  colours,  the  persecution 
of  his  enemies,  deprecates  their  malignity,  and  predicts 
their  overthrow.  That  his  own  personal  enemies  are  here 
meant,  and  that  David  in  propria  persona  speaks,  and  for 
himself,  is  clear  from  the  tenor  of  the  composition.  That 
David  is  originally  and  personally  meant,  and  not  Christ, 
is  clear  from  v.  5.  "  O  God,  thou  knowest  my  foolish- 
ness, and  my  sins  are  not  hidden  from  thee."  Could 
he  "  who  knew  no  sin"  make  such  a  confession  ?  No  ; 
here  is  the  proper  and  original  David,  and  here  of  course 
are  his  personal  enemies.  Yet  in  v.  9th  we  find  the  ex- 
pression :  "  The  zeal  of  thine  house  hath  eaten  me  up;" 
and  this  is  applied  by  the  disciples  to  Jesus,  when  he  drove 
from  the  temple  the  traffickers  who  profaned  it,  John  2:  17. 
So  again,  in  v.  21  :  "  They  gave  me  gall  for  my  meat,  and 
in  my  thirst  they  gave  me  vinegar  to  drink,"  which  is  ap- 
plied to  Jesus  in  John  19:  28,  29,  and  probably  in  Matt. 
27:  34,  48  and  Mark  15:  23.  John  intimates,  that  when 
the  vinegar  was  given  to  Jesus  on  the  cross,  there  was  "  a 
fulfilment  of  the  Scriptures."  And  undoubtedly  there  was, 
in  the  sense  already  explained.  There  was  an  event  like 
to  that  in  ancient  times.  David's  bitter  enemies  persecu- 
ted him  to  the  greatest  extremity.  They  "  gave  him  gall 
to  eat  and  vinegar  to  drink ;"  not  in  the  literal  sense,  pro- 
bably, but  in  the  figurative  one.  But  the  spiritual  David 
was  persecuted  more  bitterly  still,  even  unto  death.  Lite- 
rally even  did  they  give  him  vinegar  to  drink  mingled  with 
gall,  Matt.  27:  34.  Here  was  a  nX/jgmgig,  a  filling  up,  a 
completing  in  a  higher  sense  that  which  was  done  in  ancient 
times.  A  more  important  personage  was  here  concerued ; 
and  the  passage  of  Scripture  in  Ps.  69:  21,  when  applied 
4 


38  DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY. 

to  Jesus,  stands  forth  as  a  most  prominent  and  lively  de- 
scription of  his  sufferings. 

Once  more,  in  respect  to  this  same.  Psalm ;  in  Romans 
11:  19,  Paul  quotes  vs.  22,  23,  (with  some  little  variation 
from  the  original),  and  applies  them  to  the  state  of  the  Jews 
in  his  day,  as  descriptive  of  their  blindness,  stupidity,  and 
unbelief.  Literally  and  originally  the  descriptions  here 
were  applied  to  David's  enemies ;  but  David's  Son,  who  is 
called  Lord  by  his  earthly  ancestor  (Matt.  22:  45),  applies 
them  with  still  greater  force  to  his  own  enemies. 

Nor  is  even  this  all  the  use  which  is  made  in  the  New 
Testament  of  this  strikingly  descriptive  Psalm.  Peter 
(Acts  1:  20)  applies  to  Judas  the  25th  verse:  "Let  his 
habitation  be  desolate,  and  let  no  man  dwell  therein."  He 
even  adds,  that  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  the  mouth  of  David, 
spake  concerning  Judas  (v.  16),  and  apparently  he  means 
to  include  verse  25  in  what  was  said ;  see  Acts  1:  20,  which 
begins  the  quotation  with  a  ydg.  In  the  same  breath,  Pe- 
ter quotes  another  passage  from  Ps.  109:  9,  (which  Psalm 
is  altogether  of  the  like  tenor  with  Ps.  lxix.),  which  runs 
thus :  "  His  bishopric  let  another  man  take."  The  fair 
question  now  is  :  Was  Judas  originally  meant  here  1  The 
tenor  of  both  Psalms  shows  clearly  that  he  was  not.  Yet 
David,  as  king,  was  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  a  type  of 
king  Messiah ;  and  whac  is  done  in  respect  to  the  type, 
may,  by  the  usage  of  the  New  Testament  writers,  be  ap- 
plied to  the  antitype.  The  Holy  Ghost  did  truly  speak 
that  which  is  applicable  to  Judas,  or  which  deeply  concerns 
Judas,  inasmuch  as  he  hath,  by  the  mouth  of  David,  spo- 
ken what  is  exactly  and  highly  descriptive  of  Judas'  char- 
acter and  destiny. 

In  all  the  New  Testament  there  occur  no  cases  of  great- 
er difficulty,  than  those  which  have  now  been  brought  be- 
fore the  reader's  mind.     He  will  bear  me  witness,  then, 


DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROrHECY.  <J9 

that  I  am  not  disposed  to  avoid  the  question  which  such 
passages  bring  up,  nor  by  any  management  to  keep  it  out 
of  sight.  If  he  hesitates  to  -explain  the  New  Testament 
quotations  as  I  have  done,  I  can  only  solicit  him  to  study 
thoroughly  the  whole  subject  of  quotations,  and  then  to 
take  also  into  view  the  usual  ancient  and  Jewish  method 
of  quoting  and  applying  Scripture,  as  exhibited  in  the 
Mishna,  the  Gemara,  and  the  writings  of  the  Rabbins.  If 
he  does  not  come  to  the  same  conclusion,  at  last,  which  I 
have  now  developed,  I  can  only  say,  his  views  and  his 
modes  of  reasoning  must  be  exceedingly  foreign  from  those 
which  the  great  mass  of  well  informed  interpreters  have  of 
late  exhibited. 

I  can  find,  then,  no  warrant  in  the  New  Testament  for 
giving  a  double  sense  to  the  words  of  the  Old  Testament. 
And  if  it  be  a  fact,  that  the  apostles  have  so  interpreted 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  it  is  no  warrant  for  me,  or  any  other 
uninspired  person,  to  interpret  them  in  such  a  way,  beyond 
what  the  apostles  have  already  done.  Plainly,  a  meaning 
not  discoverable  by  any  of  the  laws  or  principles  of  lan- 
guage, (and  such  surely  is  the  vnovoia,  in  question),  can  be 
discovered  with  certainty  only  by  the  guidance  of  inspira- 
tion. All  short  of  this  must  be  conjecture  merely ;  and  on 
conjecture  we  cannot  establish  either  doctrine  or  prophecy. 
We  wait  then  for  proof,  among  all  the  mystic  interpreters 
of  former  or  latter  days,  of  supernatural  divine  guidance 
and  illumination  as  to  their  exegesis.  We  are  aware,  that 
Bengel  believed  he  had  found  such  guidance  in  respect  to 
the  meaning  of  the  beast  in  the  Apocalypse  whose  number 
is  666 ;  but  we  are  also  aware  that  his  grand  climacteric 
of  A.  D.  1836  has  passed  by,  without  any  of  the  confidently 
expected  events.  We  are  aware  that  thousands,  with  in- 
comparably less  of  piety  and  learning  than  John  Albert 
Bengel,  have  laid  claim  to  the  like,   and  even  to  greater 


40  DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY. 

disclosures,  through  the  special  influence  of  the  Spirit. 
But  we  have  still  to  learn,  from  what  quarter  credible  testi- 
mony to  such  alleged  supernatural  aid  is  to  come.  It  is 
not  enough  that  a  man  spiritualizes ;  nor  even  that  he  is 
expert  and  eloquent  in  spiritualizing.  It  does  not  suffice, 
that  he  can  make  the  unlearned  and  the  lovers  of  fancy  and 
romance  to  stare  and  wonder  at  his  talent  for  evoking 
spirituality  from  any  and  every  part  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  specially  from  prophecy.  It  is  not  enough,  that  he  can 
look  down  with  scorn  on  those  who  make  little  or  no  ac- 
count of  claims  to  such  gifts  at  the  present  time;  or  that 
he  contemplates  with  disdain  a  want  of  power  to  understand 
the  Bible  in  any  other  way  than  through  the  medium  of 
the  intellect,  and  compares  such  persons  with  the  devils  who 
believe  and  tremble.  All  this,  and  more  of  the  same  tenor, 
has  been  said  so  long  and  so  often,  that  the  ear  listens  to 
it  now  only  as  the  usual  monotony ;  and  the  diligent  in- 
quirer, who  is  resolved  to  make  his  way  to  his  own  heart 
through  the  medium  of  his  intellect,  makes  up  his  mind  to 
be  included  under  the  category  of  Intellectualists,  whatever 
may  be  the  loss  of  popularity  which  this  will  occasion  him 
among  the  Mystics. 

With  an  open  face  then  we  ask  :  Where  is  the  proof, 
that  either  prophecy,  or  any  other  part  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, or  of  the  New,  conveys  a  double  sense  1  Where  is 
the  authority  for  deciding  what  the  occult  sense  is,  or 
must  be  1  Where  is  the  defence  for  trampling  upon  the 
laws  of  interpretation  applicable  to  all  other  books,  when 
we  come  to  expound  the  Scriptures  1  Where  are  we,  when 
we  once  give  the  rein,  without  control,  to  mere  fancy  and 
imagination  ?  By  what  wonder-working  process  shall  we 
make  a  genealogical  table  as  significant  and  doctrinal  as  the 
9th  Psalm,  or  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  ?  By  what  power 
of  transformation  shall  the  list  of  furniture  for  the  temple 


DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY.  41 

become  as  instructive  to  us  as  the  ten  commandments,  or 
as  Paul's  summaries  of  Christian  morality  and  piety  in  his 
epistles  ? 

In  the  name  of  all  that  is  grave,  serious,  rational,  intel- 
lectual, respectful  to  God's  eternal  truth,  or  intelligible  in 
propounding  the  way  of  salvation  to  men,  I  protest  against 
such  an  abuse  of  reason,  of  the  holy  Scriptures,  and  of  all 
the  established  principles  of  language.  It  is  not  enough 
that  men  mean  well,  to  entitle  them  thus  to  sport  with  the 
Bible.  That  book  is  no  toy  for  the  sport  of  fancy  and  ca- 
price. He  who  is  in  the  proper  attitude  for  hearing  an  ad- 
dress of  the  King  of  kings,  is  not  in  a  frame  of  mind  to  un- 
ravel charades,  and  conundrums,  and  enigmas  which  are 
more  skilfully  ambiguous  than  that  of  CEedipus.  The  Ma- 
jesty of  heaven  does  not  expect  trifling  with  his  messages. 

Tell  me  not,  I  would  say  again,  that  the  Bible  can  be 
rendered  more  useful,  by  admitting  a  second  or  spiritual 
sense.  Whose  office  is  it  to  mend  what  God  has  done  1 
To  whom  does  it  belong  to  supply  the  defects  of  his  reve- 
lation ?  Who  shall  decide,  that  he  has  not  communicated 
what  he  meant  to  communicate,  and  all  that  he  meant  to 
communicate,  by  the  Scripture  interpreted  agreeably  to 
the  common  laws  and  principles  of  language  and  of  the  hu- 
man mind  in  reference  to  language  ?  Authority  must  come 
from  above,  in  order  to  entitle  any  man  to  undertake  this. 
And  as  to  those  who  do  undertake  it — what  is  their  rule 
or  limit  ?  The  more  sober  among  them  dare  not  venture 
to  make  an  occult  sense  out  of  a  passage,  which  may  serve 
as  the  basis  of  a  single  doctrine  or  precept.  The  analogy 
of  plain  Scripture  must  come  in  aid  of  the  second  sense, 
before  they  can  even  venture  upon  it.  Of  what  use  then 
can  all  this  spiritualizing  and  allegorizing  be  to  the  church  ? 
The  most  to  which  it  can  lay  claim  is,  to  please  the  fancy 
and  gratify  the  imagination.  But  with  what?  Plainly 
4* 


42  DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY. 

with  the  mere  ingenuity  of  the  preacher  or  writer  ;  for  this 
is  all  which  comes  fairly  into  the  account.  To  aim  at 
making  God's  word  more  significant  and  profitable  than  he 
has  made  it — is  not  an  undertaking  in  which  men  should 
lightly  engage. 

In  whatever  light  the  matter  is  viewed,  it  will  not  bear 
the  test  of  rigid  scrutiny.  At  all  events,  let  those  who 
have  a  predominant  inclination  to  this  fancy  work,  go  no 
further  than  they  themselves  will  venture  to  maintain  that 
the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  have  led  them.  The 
ground  is  too  dangerous  and  uncertain  to  be  occupied  an 
inch  beyond  this  mark,  even  as  the  matter  appears  to  them. 
There  is  one  simple  principle  that  should  run  through  all 
preaching  and  all  expositions ;  which  is,  that  the  mind  of 
the  scriptural  writer  should  be  given  as  it  was  originally 
expressed  by  his  language.  The  meaning  of  any  book, 
is  simply  what  the  writer  had  in  his  own  mind  and  intend- 
ed to  express.  This  being  given,  the  work  of  interpretation 
is  done.  For  the  rest,  the  process  is  easy.  Manente  rati- 
one  manet  ipsa  lex  includes  the  whole.  So  far  as  our  circum- 
stances and  relations  are  like  those  of  the  persons  to  whom 
the  Scriptures  were  originally  addressed,  so  far  what  was 
said  to  them  is  binding  upon  us ;  but  no  farther.  It  is 
thus  that  the  Scriptures  are  indeed  profitable  for  doctrine 
to  all ;  for  all  have  the  like  relations  to  God,  and  the  like 
relations  to  their  fellow  beings ;  and  nothing,  therefore,  in 
the  Bihle  can  be  a  mere  dead  letter  to  us.  But  to  make 
all  parts  of  the  Bible  equally  significant  and  instructive, 
under  pretence  of  piety  and  spirituality  and  reverence  for 
the  Scriptures — is  not  this  to  abuse  the  gift  of  reason,  and 
to  take  away  all  respect  on  the  part  of  intelligent  men  for 
the  advocates  of  scriptural  religion,  and  to  do  a  violence 
to  the  laws  of  interpretation  and  to  the  first  principles  of  lan- 
guage, for  which  no  alleged  edification  can  in  any  measure 


DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPl 


compensate?     Nothing  short  of  renewed  ins 

make  sure  our  footing,  while  standing  upon  such  a  ground 

as  this. 

I  might  now  quit  this  topic,  were  it  not  that  when  the 
subject  comes  to  a  point  like  that  which  has  now  been  be- 
fore us,  a  new  direction  is  given  to  it,  which  needs  some 
further  attention. 

When  we  say,  that  the  Scriptures  mean  what  the  authors 
of  them  designed  they  should  mean,  we  are  not  unfre- 
quently  arrested  here  by  questions  such  as  the  following : 
Who  then  is  the  proper  Author  of  the  Scriptures  ?  And 
if  God  be  that  author,  by  his  Spirit,  then  may  we  not  well 
suppose  that  the  words  of  Scripture  are  more  significant 
than  the  common  laws  of  language  would  allow  them  to  be  1 

I  will  not  allege,  that  the  subject,  as  presented  by  these 
questions,  is  attended  by  no  difficulties.  Yet  it  seems  to 
me,  after  the  most  careful  attention  which  I  have  been  able 
to  bestow  upon  it,  that  these  difficulties  are  not  insuperable. 

When  God  speaks  to  men,  in  the  way  of  a  revelation, 
he  speaks  by  men,  and  through  the  medium  of  human 
language,  or  by  symbols  which  are  equivalent  to  lan- 
guage. In  either  case,  the  object  is  to  reveal  something, 
or  to  teach  something.  We  will  suppose  now  that  he  ad- 
dresses them  "  with  the  language  of  angels ;"  what  revela- 
tion is  in  reality  made  by  the  address  1  Just  as  much,  we 
may  reply,  as  would  be  made,  should  we  now  address  one 
of  our  peasants  in  Hebrew  or  Arabic ;  and  no  more.  To 
speak  in  an  unknown  language,  without  interpreting  it,  or 
furnishing  means  to  interpret  it,  is  of  course  making  no 
revelation  at  all ;  it  is  teaching  nothing. 

The  Bible  furnishes  abundant  evidence  that  the  real 
mode  of  divine  revelation  is  very  different  from  this.  To 
the  Hebrews,  Hebrew  discourse  was  addressed ;  to  the 
Jews  when  speaking  Chaldee,  Chaldee  discourse ;  to  Jews 


44  DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY. 

and  Gentiles,  when  both  could  read  and  understand  Greek, 
Greek  discourse.  Why?  For  the  simple  and  most  co- 
gent of  all  reasons,  viz.,  that  what  was  revealed  might 
be  understood.  But  if  the  common  laws  of  interpretation 
were  not  applicable  to  what  was  said,  then  of  course  it  could 
not  be  understood.  But  inasmuch  as  the  whole  tenor  of 
the  Hebrew  and  Greek  Scriptures  shows  that  the  usual 
laws  of  language  are  observed,  we  must  have  some  new 
and  special  revelation  in  order  to  authorize  us  to  believe, 
that  the  Bible  is  to  be  exempted  from  these  laws.  Or  if  a 
part  is  to  be  interpreted  by  the  usual  laws  of  exegesis,  and 
a  part  to  be  exempted  from  them,  who  will  show  us  where 
the  line  of  distinction  is  to  be  drawn  between  these  two 
very  diverse  portions  of  the  divine  word  1  No  one  has 
yet  solved  this  question.  The  mode  of  proceeding  in  re- 
spect to  the  vnbvoia  has  been,  that  every  one  "  has  done 
what  was  right  in  his  own  eyes."  But  are  we  indeed  left 
in  such  a  condition  as  this?  Are  we,  after  all,  left  in  the 
dark ;  and  this  too,  when  we  are  launched  on  a  boundless 
ocean  without  rudder  or  compass  ? 

There  must  be  some  very  important  purposes  to  be  an- 
swered by  occult  Scripture,  if  it  be  indeed  true  that  it  is 
in  and  of  itself  occult.  Most  readily  do  I  concede,  for  my 
own  experience  teaches  me  every  day,  that  many  portions 
of  Scripture  are  in  a  measure  occult  to  me.  But  why  ? 
Merely  because  I  am  not  so  familiar  with  the  original  lan- 
guages of  Scripture  and  the  objects  there  referred  to,  that 
the  bare  reading  or  hearing  of  it  will  suffice  to  make  me 
understand  it.  It  is  occult  to  me,  merely  and  only  because 
I  am  wanting  in  knowledge  appropriate  to  the  right  un- 
derstanding of  it.  But  was  it  so  dark  originally,  to  those 
who  were  addressed  by  the  sacred  writers  ?  How  can  we 
credit  this  ?  The  prophets  were  preachers  in  part.  In- 
deed their  main  business  was  preaching.     Prediction,  in 


DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY.  45 

the  strict  sense  of  the  word,  belongs  to  but  quite  a  subor- 
dinate part  of  their  works.  Was  their  preaching  then  in- 
telligible ?  I  need  not  stop  to  prove  this  ;  for  the  bare  state- 
ment of  the  case  does  of  itself  make  it  incontrovertible. 
God  does  not  mock  men  by  addressing  them  in  an  un- 
known language,  and  then  making  them  responsible  for 
disobedience  to  his  commands  delivered  in  that  language. 
The  preaching  of  the  prophets  must  have  been  intelligible 
to  their  contemporaries,  in  the  same  manner  as  well-com- 
posed gospel-sermons  are  now  intelligible  to  the  great  mass 
of  the  Christian  community  among  us.  It  was  doubtless 
true  in  ancient  times,  as  it  is  now,  that  there  were  some 
individuals  too  ignorant  to  comprehend  all  which  the  pro- 
phets uttered  in  their  sermons ;  still  it  was  then  as  it  is 
now,  i.  e.  the  language  of  preaching  must  have  been  intel- 
ligible to  all  intelligent  people. 

If  now  we  could  in  all  respects  place  ourselves  in  the 
condition  of  those  who  were  originally  addressed  by  the 
sacred  writers,  we  should  then  understand  at  once  nearly 
every  thing  in  the  Scriptures  without  any  difficulty ;  just 
as  easily  as  we  now  understand  religious  instructions  from 
our  pulpits.  All  the  dictionaries,  grammars,  commenta- 
ries, and  learned  exegetical  essays  of  our  libraries  might 
at  once  be  dispensed  with  ;  at  all  events  we  should  need 
them  no  more  than  we  need  Lowth's  English  Grammar, 
and  Johnson's  Dictionary,  in  order  to  understand  our  com- 
mon mother  tongue. 

So  far,  I  think,  all  my  readers  will  be  ready  to  agree 
with  me.  When  God  addresses  men,  in  order  to  instruct, 
or  reprove,  or  console,  he  will  of  course  speak  what  is  in- 
telligible. 

But  there  is  another  and  somewhat  different  view, 
which  is  sometimes  taken  of  various  predictions  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  also  of  the  New.     This  is,  as  its  abettors 


46  DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY. 

allege,  that  they  are,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  not  only 
somewhat  obscure,  but  are  in  fact,  i.  e.  they  were  origi- 
nally, designed  to  be  obscure.  Not  only  are  many  of  them 
clothed  in  language  which  is  highly  figurative,  but  the  dic- 
tion is  even  of  design  enigmatical.  God,  as  it  is  alleged, 
had  undoubtedly  a  definite  meaning  in  his  own  mind, 
which  he  attached  to  the  language  that  was  employed,  but 
this  meaning  was  designedly  veiled  from  men  in  general, 
and  sometimes  even  from  the  prophets  themselves. 

That,  when  the  Holy  Spirit  inspired  the  prophets  and 
led  them  to  utter  predictions,  he  himself  attached  a  wider 
and  fuller  and  more  definite  extent  of  meaning  to  the  words 
employed,  than  the  prophets  did  or  could,  I  cannot  doubt. 
All  the  future  was  perfectly  known  to  the  Spirit  of  God. 
It  is,  indeed,  an  easy  matter  to  illustrate  this.  When  New- 
ton or  La  Place  used  the  word  sun,  it  recalled  to  their  minds 
all  the  astronomical  views  of  that  luminary  which  they  had 
acquired  by  study ;  while  the  peasant,  who  employs  the  same 
word,  means  only  the  apparent  luminary  of  the  skies  which 
rises  and  sets  and  scatters  Jight  and  warmth  over  all  the 
earth.  But  if  Newton  or  La  Place  were  to  converse  with 
any  persons  destitute  of  astronomical  knowledge,  they 
would  of  course  employ  the  word  sun  only  in  a  sense  in- 
telligible to  them.  On  any  other  ground  they  could  not 
expect  to  be  understood. 

Like  to  this,  now,  must  be  the  case  in  regard  to  pro- 
phetic revelation.  If  God  reveals  the  future  to  men,  then 
he  must  speak  so  as  to  be  understood.  The  things  sug- 
gested by  the  words  employed,  are,  beyond  all  question, 
understood  by  him  incomparably  better  than  they  can  be 
by  men.  But  the  question  before  us  is,  not  what  know- 
ledge God  possesses,  but  what  has  he  designed  to  reveal  ? 
Now  if  he  employs  words  as  the  medium  of  a  revelation 
respecting  the  future,  then  those  words  are  to  be  interpre- 


PROPHECY  NOT  INTELLIGIBLE  UNTIL  FULFILLED.         47 

ted  by  the  ordinary  rules  of  language,  or  else  there  is  of 
course  no  revelation  made  by  them.  An  occult  sense  here 
is  of  course  no  sense  at  all. 

Put  the  case  now,  for  example,  that  Rev.  xn.  was  unin- 
telligible to  those  whom  John  addressed,  and  of  course  is 
so  to  us  ;  then  what  was  the  object  in  writing  Rev.  xn.  ? 
Certainly  not  to  reveal  any  thing  to  the  church  then,  or 
since  ;  for,  on  the  ground  taken,  nothing  is  revealed.  Of 
what  use  then  are  such  predictions,  (if  we  may  apply  such 
a  misnomer  to  them),  to  the  church  of  Christ  1  Surely 
they  can  have  been  of  no  use,  thus  far.  For  what  purpose 
then  was  the  Apocalypse  written  1  If  we  may  follow  the 
suggestions  of  the  book,  in  all  parts  of  it,  it  was  written  to 
encourage  and  console  Christians  in  the  midst  of  severe 
trials  and  fiery  persecutions — to  console  them  with  the  cer- 
tain prospect  of  the  triumphs  of  the  church  over  all  her  en- 
emies. But  what  consolation  or  what  instruction  could  be 
derived  from  those  parts  of  the  book,  which  were  intelligi- 
ble neither  to  John  himself,  nor  to  any  of  his  readers  1 
None — none  !  What  shall  we  say  then  ?  Has  God  spoken 
for  no  purpose  1  Or  has  he  spoken  for  a  particular  pur- 
pose, and  yet  in  such  a  way  as  not  at  all  to  answer  that 
purpose  1  I  cannot  venture  on  such  positions. 

But  here  the  subject  is  wont  to  take  a  new  turn,  which 
leads  us  to  the  second  topic  proposed  for  discussion. 

§  3.  Prophecy  not  intelligible  until  it  is  fulfilled,    y 

There  are  not  a  few  prophecies  respecting  which  we  are 
told,  that  God  has  a  meaning  which  is  attached  to  the  lan- 
guage employed,  although  it  has  not  yet  been  developed. 
When  the  events  come  to  pass  to  which  the  prophecy  relates, 
then,  and  not  till  then,  shall  we  be  able  to  understand  the 
words  of  the  prediction.  <* 


48  PROPHECY  NOT  INTELLIGIBLE 

\  I   have   found   this   sentiment   echoed    and    re-echoed 

so  often  among  expositors  of  the  prophecies,  even  by 
such  enlightened  men  as  Hengstenburg,  and  Tholuck  too, 
that  I  have  been  forced  upon  an  examination  of  its  claims 
to  our  credit.  It  has  become,  with  many,  a  kind  of  uni- 
versal menstruum,  in  which  all  the  difficulties  of  the  pro- 
phecies are  solved.  When  we  get  to  the  utmost  limits  of 
our  knowledge  respecting  them,  then  we  are  warned  to  in- 
clude all  the  rest  within  the  domain  of  hallowed  secrecy. 
In  fact,  some  even  lay  claim  to  credit  for  piety,  in  such  an 
unreserved  submission,  as  they  deem  it,  to  the  divine  will. 
Happy  do  some  count  the  lot  of  those,  who  merely  wonder, 
in  such  cases,  at  "  the  ways  of  God  which  are  past  finding 
out."  How  comfortable  moreover  it  is,  when  we  can  not 
only  cover  over  the  faults  of  our  imperfect  knowledge  in  a 
way  so  creditable,  but  also  dispense  with  all  future  effort 
and  trouble,  which  would  result  from  pursuing  inquiries 
into  the  dark  domains  of  the  Scripture  ! 

iv  All  the  attention  which  I  have  bestowed  on  these  views, 

so  common  among  one  class  of  interpreters,  has  never  en- 
abled me  to  see  or  feel  the  justice  or  propriety  of  them. 
Let  us  now  suppose  a  case  for  the  sake  of  illustration. 
John,  we  will  say,  has  uttered  many  things  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse, which  will  never  be  understood  until  they  are  fulfil- 
led. Let  it  be  then,  that  2000  years  after  he  has  written 
his  book  those  things  are  to  be  fulfilled.  The  first  ques- 
tion that  we  naturally  ask,  is  :  To  what  purpose  did  John 
write  those  predictions  ?  During  2000  years  they  have  been 
or  will  be,  by  concession,  neither  more  nor  less  than  a 
dead  letter.      The  church  is  neither  admonished,  nor  in- 

./  structed,  nor  comforted.  Why  then  were  they  written? 
Was  it  to  show  that  God  can  move  in  a  mysterious  way, 
and  shroud  himself  in  clouds  and  darkness  ?  There  is 
proof  enough  of  this  in  every  quarter  of  his  works,  without 


PROPHECY  NOT  INTELLIGIBLE.  49 

a  resort  to  such  means.  All  heaven  and  earth  bear  witness 
that  his  ways  are  often  past  finding  out.  And  would  he  re- 
sort, then,  for  the  sake  of  making  this  impression,  to  such 
means  as  those  now  under  consideration  ?  The  sugges- 
tion seems  derogatory  to  his  majesty  and  dignity.  To 
make  a  revelation — and  yet  that  revelation  (so  called)  be 
entirely  unintelligible  1  How  can  we  conceive  of  his  sport- 
ing with  the  hopes  and  expectations  of  men  in  such  a  way  ? 
To  make  one,  moreover,  which  for  thousands  of  years  re- 
mains a  perfect  enigma  to  his  church — is  this  any  relief  of 
the  difficulty  1  To  my  own  mind,  at  least,  it  is  none  at 
all. 

But  this  is  not  the  end  of  the  matter.  There  is  a  still 
more  serious  difficulty  to  be  met.  We  are  told  that  '  the  pro- 
phecy will  be  understood  then,  and  only  then,  when  the  thing 
predicted  comes  to  pass.1  What  then  is  the  thing  which 
comes  to  pass  I  I  may  surely  be  permitted  to  ask  this 
question.  What  is  the  thing  predicted?  It  is  conceded, 
that  by  the  laws  of  language  no  proper  meaning  has  been, 
or  can  be,  made  out  from  the  prophecy  in  question.  But 
after  2000  years,  something  will  take  place,  it  is  said,  to 
which  we  may  apply  it.  Apply  what  ?  If  an  event  is  com- 
pared with  a  prophecy,  the  only  means  of  comparison  pos- 
sible, is,  that  we  first  assign  some  definite  meaning  to  the 
prophecy,  and  then  compare  the  event  with  that  meaning. 
If  this  be  not  the  case,  then  we  merely  make  a  compari- 
son of  a  known  thing  with  one  that  is  unknown.  How  then 
are  we  to  ascertain  that  they  agree,  when  we  confess  that 
one  of  the  two  things  compared,  is  (so  to  speak)  an  un- 
known quantity  ?  So  long  as  it  is  unknown,  or  treated  as 
unknown,  we  can  have  no  means  of  ascertaining  whether 
there  is  an  agreement,  or  not,  in  the  case  supposed. 

Is  not  this  whole  matter,  moreover,  mere  reasoning  in  a 
circle  1     The  prophecy  (an  unknown  something)  agrees 


50  PROPHECY  NOT  INTELLIGIBLE, 

with  the  event,  because  the  event  agrees  with  the  prophe- 
cy !  Some  laws  of  language  then,  after  all,  must  first  be 
applied  to  the  prophecy,  in  order  to  make  out  any  definite 
meaning  ;  and  if  so,  why  could  not  these  have  been  appli- 
ed at  a  period  antecedent,  as  well  as  now  ?  It  seems  im- 
possible to  vindicate  with  success  any  such  method  of  rea- 
soning— such  a  complete  vaiego*  itqotsqov  as  this.  A  pro- 
phecy, unintelligible  by  the  laws  of  language,  can  never  be 
a  revelation ;  nor  can  there  ever  be  any  certainty  among 
uninspired  men,  that  it  is  truly  and  correctly  understood. 

It  would  not  be  proper,  however,  to  dismiss  this  topic 
without  some  additional  remarks,  which  may  aid  us  in  ex- 
plaining the  ground,  why  the  principle  in  question  has  been 
so  extensively  admitted,  among  many  interpreters  whose 
piety  and  learning  cannot  well  be  called  in  question. 

Words  are  the  signs  of  things.  Words,  as  originally 
employed  by  a  writer  or  speaker,  designate  the  view  of 
things  which  exists  in  his  own  mind.  But  it  must  be  re- 
membered, that  words,  which  have  been  formed  by  men 
whose  knowledge  is  imperfect,  (and  all  words  are  so  form- 
ed), cannot,  from  the  nature  of  the  case  in  many  instances, 
convey  complete  or  perfect  ideas  or  make  complete  repre- 
sentations of  many  things.  The  reason  is,  that  there  is 
much  belonging  to  most  objects  of  which  men  speak,  which 
is  not  understood  or  known  by  them ;  and  what  is  un- 
known they  do  not,  and  cannot,  definitely  describe.  For 
example ;  the  words  God,  heaven,  hell,  soul,  etc.,  while 
they  convey  the  definite  ideas  that  men  have  concerning 
these  respective  objects,  yet  they  do  not  convey  to  our 
minds  any  description  of  that  which  is  unknown  to  us,  but 
which  at  the  same  time  belongs  to  these  objects.  There 
may  be  then,  and  in  respect  to  most  objects  there  are, 
many  things  appertaining,  which  no  human  language  de- 
scribes, or  can  describe ;  and  this  for  the  simple  reason, 


PROPHECY  NOT  INTELLIGIBLE.  51 

that  language  is  employed  to  describe  what  we  do  know, 
or  suppose  ourselves  to  know,  and  not  to  describe  that  of 
which  we  have  no  knowledge  or  conception. 

It  does  not  make  against  this  view  of  the  subject  at  all, 
that  there  are  many  words  which  stand  as  signs  of  things 
which  are  for  the  most  part  unknown  to  us.  For  example ; 
the  word  gravity,  or  the  phrase  power  of  gravity,  desig- 
nates a  something  in  the  earth  and  planets  which  attracts 
material  objects  toward  them,  while,  at  the  same  time,  we 
pretend  to  no  knowledge  of  the  real  nature,  attributes, 
place,  manner  of  existence,  etc.,  of  that  something,  only  so 
far  as  the  attraction  just  mentioned  develops  them.  After 
all,  then,  the  words  gravity,  or  power  of  gravity,  desig- 
nate only  so  much  of  that  something  as  we  know,  or  at 
least  suppose  ourselves  to  know. 

So  in  many  other  cases ;  we  see  developments  of  powers 
or  of  substances,  (as  we  suppose  them  to  be),  which  afford 
us  but  some  twilight-rays  to  aid  us  in  the  cognizance  of 
those  substances  and  powers  themselves.  For  example; 
electricity,  magnetism,  and  light,  are  words  that  convey 
ideas  to  our  minds  which  are  definite  to  a  certain  extent. 
But  beyond  this  they  designate  nothing  specific.  If  these 
words  are  still  employed  by  any  one  in  order,  to  designate 
a  supposed  something  beyond  our  knowledge,  they  are,  if 
I  may  so  speak,  like  some  exponents  in  algebra,  the  mere 
signs  of  a  quantity  unknown. 

But  we  will  suppose  now,  that  some  being  who  has  a 
perfect  acquaintance  with  the  substances  named,  employs 
the  same  words  to  designate  them.  To  these  words  he  may 
affix  a  meaning,  of  course,  that  corresponds  with  the  extent 
of  his  knowledge.  But  he  cannot  expect  others,  possessed 
of  only  an  imperfect  knowledge,  to  understand  the  words 
in  all  respects  as  he  does. 

We  will  admit  now  that  God,  if  we  may  (with  rever- 


52  PROPHECY  NOT  INTELLIGIBLE. 

ence)  suppose  him  to  employ  human  language,  having  a 
perfect  knowledge  of  all  things,  may  connect  with  that  lan- 
guage many  ideas  unknown  to  us,  and  in  our  present  state 
not  knowable  to  us.  Still,  what  God  knows  in  and  of  him- 
self, is  one  thing ;  what  he  reveals,  or  designs  to  reveal,  is 
quite  another.  Surely  no  one  will  say,  that  God  undertakes 
to  reveal  to  us  that  which  we  are  incapable  of  knowing.  To 
suppose  this,  would  be  virtually  to  impeach  his  wisdom, 
his  paternal  care,  and  even  his  perfect  knowledge.  When 
God  speaks  to  men,  it  is  that  he  may  be  understood  by 
them  ;  for  on  any  other  ground  he  does  not  truly  speak  to 
them. 

It  is  not  then  all  which  is  in  his  mind,  that  the  words  of 
Scripture  are  intended  to  designate.  It  is  only  so  much 
as  may  be  revealed;  and  if  revealed  by  words,  then  those 
words  must  bear  the  sense  which  the  usus  loquendi  gives 
them,  or  else  no  revelation  is  made  by  them. 

When  predictions  of  future  and  distant  events  are  utter- 
ed, no  words,  it  will  be  admitted,  can  of  themselves  de- 
scribe all  which  appertains  to  those  events.  God  indeed 
knows  all ;  but  he  does  not  communicate,  nor  does  he  de- 
sign to  communicate,  all  his  knowledge  to  men.  To  as- 
sume that  a  prophecy  is  designed  to  reveal  all  which  the 
divine  mind  knows  respecting  the  event  predicted,  is  such 
an  assumption  as  no  reason  nor  laws  of  language  can  jus- 
tify. 

The  question  then  comes  fairly  before  us :  How  much 
does  the  Holy  Spirit  mean  to  convey,  by  the  words  of  any 
particular  prophecy  1  The  answer  is  not  difficult.  God 
speaks  by  men,  and  for  men.  The  prophets  were  inspired 
by  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  why  ?  In  order  that  they  might 
with  certainty  and  authority  give  information  respecting 
things  past,  present,  or  future.  To  give  information  ne- 
cessarily presupposes,  that  they  themselves  possessed  it. 


PROPHECY  NOT  INTELLIGIBLE.  53 

If  the  Holy  Spirit  employs  such  a  medium  of  communica- 
tion, i.  e.  speaks  through  prophets,  it  is  plainly  in  order 
that  human  language  may  be  addressed  to  human  beings. 
The  language  employed,  therefore,  means  just  what  the 
writers  designed  it  should  mean.  Every  book  is  fully  in- 
terpreted, when  the  exact  mind  of  the  writer  is  unfolded. 

Were  the  prophets  then  omniscient,  even  when  inspired  ? 
Plainly  not.  The  Bible  is  full  of  evidence,  that  inspira- 
tion teaches  only  what  pertains  to  religious  truth  and  duty, 
not  the  arts  and  sciences.  And  even  religious  truth  is  not 
taught  in  a  manner  absolutely  complete  and  perfect,  but 
only  relatively  so.  In  our  present  state,  we  can  only  "  know 
in  part,  and  believe  in  part."  "  We  see  through  a  glass 
darkly."  All  that  is  now  needed  by  us  is  revealed.  So 
much,  therefore,  the  prophets  understood.  But  if  they  ut- 
tered words  as  mere  automata,  which  they  did  not  them- 
selves understand,  then  they  neither  received  nor  imparted 
any  revelation.  What  is  unknown  and  not  knowable,  is 
surely  no  revelation. 

I  am  well  aware  that  I  shall  be  met  here  with  the  alle- 
gation, that  the  Scriptures  often  represent  the  prophets  as 
not  understanding  what  they  uttered,  and  therefore  the 
meaning  of  their  language,  it  is  said,  cannot  be  limited  to 
what  they  meant  to  say.  But  although  this  has  been  often 
and  confidently  affirmed,  I  have  never  been  able  to  satisfy 
myself  that  it  is  correct.  The  case  of  speaking  in  unknown 
tongues,  as  set  forth  in  1  Cor.  xiv,  is  appealed  to  as  con- 
clusive in  favor  of  the  position  just  mentioned.  But  this 
will  not  sustain  the  appeal.  In  1  Cor.  14:  4,  "  Paul  tells 
us,  that  "  he  who  speak eth  in  an  unknown  tongue,  edifieth 
himself"  If  so,  then  surely  he  must  himself  understand 
what  he  says ;  for  the  same  apostle  tells  us,  that  there  is 
no  edification  in  that  which  is  not  understood. 

An  appeal  is  also  made  to  1  Pet.  1:  1 1,  12,  as  declaring 
5* 


54  PROPHECY  NOT  INTELLIGIBLE. 

that  the  prophets  made  diligent  search,  in  order  to  under- 
stand what  they  themselves  uttered.  But  I  can  find  no 
such  sentiment  there.  Peter  says,  first,  that  they  prophe- 
sied respecting  the  gracious  dispensation  of  the  gospel ; 
secondly,  that  "  they  searched  what,  and  what  manner  of 
time  (slg  tlva  j}  nolov  xmgov)  the  things  would  take  place, 
which  were  the  subject  of  revelation,"  i.  e.  when  Christ 
would  appear,  and  what  would  be  the  form  and  manner  of 
his  dispensation  ;  thirdly,  that  in  answer  to  their  inquiries 
it  was  revealed  to  them,  that  only  the  distant  future  would 
be  the  period  of  development.  In  all  this  there  is  nothing 
which  declares  or  even  intimates,  that  the  prophets  did  not 
understand  what  they  had  uttered.  The  passage  only 
shows,  that  they  were  anxious  to  know  the  time  and  man- 
ner of  the  new  dispensation.  These,  at  first,  were  not  re- 
vealed ;  and  even  afterwards,  only  so  much  was  disclosed 
as  enabled  them  to  see,  that  a  distant  period  was  reserved 
for  the  Messianic  development,  so  that  it  could  not  take 
place  in  their  day. 

In  the  books  of  Daniel,  of  Zechariah,  and  of  Revela- 
tion, which  are  full  of  symbols,  the  case  not  unfrequently 
occurs,  where  the  prophet  does  not  at  first  know  the  mean- 
ing of  the  symbols.  Nothing  could  be  more  natural  than 
this.  But  in  each  of  these  books,  be  it  well  remembered, 
the  prophet  is  represented  as  being  accompanied  by  his 
angel-interpreter,  who  explains  what  was  obscure  in  the 
symbol.  Why  this  ?  Why  was  not  the  symbol  left  for 
future  explanation,  to  be  made  at  some  distant  period  ? 

In  one  case,  Dan.  12:  8,  the  prophet  declares  that  "  he 
heard  and  understood  not."  But  to  what  does  this  relate  .? 
Evidently  to  what  was  suggested  to  his  mind  by  the  decla- 
rations in  v.  7,  where  it  is  said,  that  the  end  of  the  wonders 
shall  be  "  after  a  time,  times,  and  a  half,"  subsequent  to 
the  complete  scattering  of  the  holy  people.     Daniel  now 


PROPHECY  NOT  INTELLIGIBLE.  55 

does  not  inquire,  like  the  angel  in  v.  6,  how  long  it  shall 
be  to  the  end  of  the  wonders  named,  but  he  asks  what  the 
end  of  those  things  would  be,  i.  e.  to  what  state  or  condi- 
tion of  things  they  will  lead,  or,  in  other  words,  what  will 
be  the  sequel.  That  such  is  the  meaning  of  his  question, 
is  evident  from  the  nature  of  the  answer  given  to  it  by  the 
angel,  in  vs.  9 — 13.  The  declaration  of  Daniel,  then,  has 
respect  only  to  consequences  connected  with  the  events 
predicted.  So  extraordinary  were  the  events,  that  he  was 
astonished  at  them  and  filled  with  wonder.  Very  naturally 
does  he  say,  therefore,  that  he  does  not  know  what  they 
can  mean ;  a  declaration  the  like  of  which  we  are  always 
prone  to  make,  whenever  any  thing  extraordinary  fills  us 
with  consternation  and  surprise. 

These  are  the  most  striking  examples  to  which  appeal 
is  made,  in  order  to  show  that  the  prophets  were  sometimes 
themselves  ignorant  of  what  they  uttered.  I  am  not  able 
to  see,  how  any  sound  argument  can  be  built  upon  them. 
The  prophets  might  be,  and  very  often  were,  ignorant  of 
either  the  time,  or  the  manner,  or  the  circumstances,  or 
the  consequences,  etc.,  of  things  or  events  which  they  pre- 
dicted. No  one  can  for  a  moment  doubt  this ;  for  almost 
all  prophecies  are  the  mere  outlines  of  future  occurrences, 
not  minute  likenesses.  With  the  exception  of  some  two 
or  three  passages,  even  the  Messianic  prophecies  in  general 
are  of  this  character.  How  then  can  we  reasonably  sup- 
pose, that  more  was  revealed  to  the  prophets  than  they 
have  expressed  ?  I  know  of  no  proof  that  can  be  adduced, 
which  will  show  that  they  professed  any  more  knowledge 
of  such  events  than  they  have  developed.  To  attribute  to 
the  prophets  all  the  knowledge  of  the  gospel-dispensation 
which  may  now  be  acquired,  would  not  be  walking  in  the 
path  in  which  Jesus  led  the  way,  when  he  declared,  in  re- 
ference to  the  ancient  dispensation :  "  No  man  hath  seen 


56  PROPHECY  NOT  INTELLIGIBLE* 

God  at  any  time ;  the  only  begotten  Son,  who  is  in  the 
bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath  revealed  him,  John  1:  18. 
Nor  would  it  be  giving  due  heed  to  the  declaration  of  Paul 
(2  Tim.  1:  10),  who  says,  that  "life  and  immortality  are 
brought  to  light  through  the  gospel."  And  if  the  pro- 
phets themselves  possessed  only  a  partial  knowledge  of  the 
things  in  question,  even  when  inspired,  surely  it  was  not 
designed  that  those  to  whom  they  originally  addressed  the 
prophecies  should  be  more  enlightened  than  their  inspired 
teachers.  What  the  prophets  did  know,  they  have  com- 
municated ;  and  they  have  done  in  this  case  the  same 
thing  which  they  have  done  in  all  other  cases,  where  they 
have  made  any  revelation,  i.  e.  they  have  spoken  in  an  in- 
telligible manner  what  they  designed  to  speak. 

To  say  that  many  things  are  dark  to  us  which  they  have 
uttered,  is  only  alleging  our  own  ignorance,  and  is  not, 
and  cannot  be,  any  proof  that  they  did  not  speak  intelligi- 
bly to  their  contemporaries.  To  say  that  we  may  now  un- 
derstand, better  than  they  did,  the  things  or  occurrences 
which  they  predicted,  is  saying  nothing  to  the  present  pur- 
pose. It  is  beyond  all  doubt  true,  that  the  man  who  visits 
London  can  better  understand  a  description  of  that  metro- 
polis, than  one  who  never  saw  it.  It  is  beyond  a  doubt 
true,  that,  had  we  been  present  at  any  of  the  scenes  record- 
ed in  ancient  or  in  modern  history,  we  could  enter  with 
more  interest  and  intelligence  into  the  meaning  of  faithful 
narratives  respecting  them.  But  subsequent  knowledge, 
acquired  by  readers  at  the  time  when  events  predicted  are 
or  have  been  developed,  although  it  may  greatly  aid  them 
in  readily  understanding  the  predictions,  can  never  be  the 
rule  of  exegesis.  Any  writing  means  that,  and  only  that, 
which  the  author  designed  it  should  mean.  If  the  author 
of  any  prophecy,  then,  had  a  meaning,  (and  who  will  deny 
this),  we  cannot  help  believing  that  he  designed  to  impart 


PROPHECY  NOT  INTELLIGIBLE.  57 

it.  And  if,  for  the  sake  of  parrying  the  conclusion  that 
would  follow  in  this  case,  any  one  should  aver,  that  God 
is  the  real  author  of  the  Scriptures,  still  this  will  make  no 
important  difference.  God  cannot  impart  all  his  know- 
ledge to  his  creatures,  i.  e.  he  cannot  make  them  omnis- 
cient, because  their  imperfect  natures  render  this  impossi- 
ble. Nor  can  we  rationally  conceive,  that  he,  when  in- 
tending to  make  a  revelation  to  them  through  the  medium 
of  language,  would  employ  language  in  any  other  way  than 
in  one  intelligible  to  them.  The  design  in  question  would 
be  entirely  defeated  by  such  a  process. 

Is  it  not  then  a  great  mistake  to  suppose,  after  the  Gos- 
pel has  been  in  existence  for  eighteen  centuries,  and  Chris- 
tianity been  developing  itself  during  all  that  period,  that  the 
more  definite  and  extensive  knowledge  which  we  now  have, 
or  which  is  now  attainable,  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  an- 
cient prophets,  or  is  to  be  regarded  as  being  comprised  in 
an  occult  way  in  their  predictions  ?  And  yet  this  mistake 
is  every  day  coming  before  us.  We  are  constantly  meet- 
ing with  books  and  sermons  and  pamphlets,  which  are  at- 
tributing to  ancient  prophecies  a  pregnant  sense  that  has 
been  occult  for  some  three  thousand  years,  and  assigning 
to  them  all  the  knowledge  that  we  may  now  acquire,  or 
have  acquired.  And  all  this,  because  Scripture  must  be 
made  to  mean  all  that  it  can  mean,  and  dark  prophecy  must 
be  illuminated,  and  can  be  explained,  only  by  the  occur- 
rence of  events  predicted. 

In  the  hands  of  such  interpreters,  it  is  evident  that  the 
Bible  becomes  a  mere  mass  of  wax,  to  be  moulded  and 
impressed  in  any  way  which  fancy  may  dictate.  And  are 
we  indeed  left  thus  at  the  mercy  of  every  man's  caprice, 
at  the  disposal  of  every  enthusiast's  imagination?  If  so, 
how  can  we  hope  for  the  suffrages  of  the  sober  and  inquir- 
ing part  of  the  community  ?     Men  of  this  cast  will  not  hs- 


58  PROPHECY  NOT  INTELLIGIBLE. 

ten  to  us,  when  we  invite  them  to  travel  with  us  in  the 
dark.  We  need  somewhere,  and  we  must  have,  some 
terra  Jirma;  and  to  get  possession  of  this,  reason,  judg- 
ment, correct  taste,  sound  discretion,  and  some  good  know- 
ledge of  the  laws  of  language,  are  absolutely  requisite. 

What  says  the  same  Peter,  (to  whom  appeal  is  so  often 
made  in  order  to  show  that  the  prophets  uttered  some 
things  which  they  did  not  understand),  respecting  the  ob- 
scurity of  prophecy  ?  He  says,  that  "  we  have  a  sure  word 
of  prophecy,  whereunto  we  do  well  to  take  heed,  as  unto  a 
light  shining  in  a  dark  place"  2  Pet.  1:  19.  A  light  shining  ! 
But  how  prophecy  is  a  light,  or  how  it  shines,  or  can  shine, 
before  the  events  predicted  are  fulfilled,  is  a  problem  that 
cannot  be  solved  on  the  ground  of  those  whom  I  am  here  op- 
posing. Instead  of  being  a  light,  much  of  prophecy  is  (or 
has  been)  mere  darkness  visible,  one  might  almost  say  pal- 
pable, until  some  future  sun  shall  shed  its  rays  upon  it.  Is 
this  the  manner  of  that  God,  "  the  entrance  of  whose  word" 
into  the  mind,  as  the  Psalmist  affirms,  "  gives  light  and  im- 
parts understanding  ?" 

Many  of  the  ancient  Christian  Fathers  made  it  a  promi- 
nent ground  of  distinction  between  heathen  oracles  and  real 
prophecies,  that  the  latter  were  uttered  by  men  conscious  and 
cognizant  of  what  they  were  uttering,  while  the  former  were 
announced  by  fiavTug,  whose  own  declarations  were  often 
unintelligible  to  themselves.  Is  not  this,  now,  a  suggestion 
of  good  common  sense  ?  Why  should  we  suppose,  that 
the  prophets  were  bereft  of  consciousness  and  reason,  at 
the  very  time  when  they  were  the  subjects  of  inspiration 
and  possessed  a  knowledge  elevated  above  all  which  they 
had  known  before  ?  I  cannot  well  conceive  how  any  hon- 
our is  to  be  done  to  revelation,  by  this  way  of  explaining 
the  inspiration  of  its  authors.  What  can  be  the  advan- 
tage which  any  one  expects  to  be  gained  1      Prediction 


PROPHECY  NOT  INTELLIGIBLE.  59 

must  be  intelligible,  or  else  it  does  not  concern  those  to 
whom  it  is  addressed.  The  alleged  obscurity  in  prophecy 
never  could  have  originally  existed.  It  is  then,  and  only 
then,  that  we  can  be  led  to  suppose  that  it  exists,  viz., 
when  we  attribute  to  ancient  times  and  disclosures  all  the 
views  which  the  gospel-day  has  disclosed  to  us. 

To  the  representations  so  often  made,  that  the  prophets 
were  like  to  men  not  conscious  either  of  their  own  appro- 
priate existence  or  of  their  own  thoughts,  and  therefore 
were  mere  automata  by  means  of  which  prophecy  was  ut- 
tered, I  never  can  subscribe.  To  represent  the  prophets 
as  being  out  of  themselves,  or  as  the  mere  strings  of  a  lute 
which  must  be  struck  by  another  in  order  to  render  a  sound, 
and  when  it  does  render  one  is  still  not  conscious  of  so  do- 
ing, or  of  the  quality  of  the  sound — all  this,  although  often 
said  and  repeated,  is,  in  my  apprehension  at  least,  not  only 
unscriptural  but  anti-scriptural.  If  the  prophets  were 
merely  unconscious  instruments ;  if,  as  Hengstenberg  af- 
firms, the  spirit  of  man  went  out  when  the  Spirit  of  God 
came  in;  then  what  was  it  which  made  or  enabled  Jere- 
miah to  refuse  to  prophesy,  even  when  under  strong  pro- 
phetic influence  ( Jer.  20:  9) ;  and  why  should  he  need  the 
most  powerful  constraint  in  order  to  lead  him  to  perform 
this  duty  1  If  men,  when  inspired,  are  mere  automata  or 
involuntary  instruments,  why  does  Paul  so  strongly  cen- 
sure the  Corinthians  (chap,  xiv.)  for  abusing  their  spiritual 
gifts'?  Above  all,  if  they  are  mere  unconscious  instru- 
ments, how  can  that  be  true  which  the  apostle  says,  when 
he  declares,  that  "  the  spirits  of  the  prophets  are  subject  to 
the  prophets  ?"  1  Cor.  14:  32.  According  to  Paul,  men 
are  accountable  for  the  manner  in  which  they  employ  the 
gift  of  prophecy.  He  taxes  such  of  the  Corinthian  pro- 
phets as  spoke  in  an  unknown  tongue  without  interpreting 
it,  with  great  impropriety  of  conduct,  and  absolutely  for- 


60  PROPHECY  NOT  INTELLIGIBLE. 

bids  that  they  should  do  so  any  more.  He  enjoins  that 
the  unknown  tongue  should  be  interpreted ;  or  if  there 
should  be  no  interpreter  present,  that  silence  should  be  pre- 
served. He  says  "  he  would  rather  speak  five  words  with 
the  understanding,  [i.  e.  which  are  intelligible],  that  by 
his  voice  he  might  teach  others  also,  than  ten  thousand 
words  in  an  unknown  tongue;"  1  Cor.  14:  19.  Why 
should  this,  the  dictate  both  of  common  sense  and  of  in- 
spiration, be  so  entirely  forgotten  or  neglected,  in  the  the- 
ories of  many  interpreters  of  prophecies,  and  of  many  who 
have  descanted  on  the  inspiration  of  the  prophets  ?  It 
is  as  applicable  to  the  Old  Testament  as  to  the  New.  It 
was  as  unworthy  of  God  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation, 
as  under  the  gospel,  to  speak  unintelligibly ;  and  it  would 
seem  as  if  nothing  but  the  love  of  mystery,  of  something  re- 
condite and  strange,  or  reluctance  at  the  labour  of  acquir- 
ing sufficient  knowledge  to  explain  prophecies,  could  ever 
have  led  men  to  introduce  such  paradoxes  as  I  have  been 
controverting,  into  the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures. 

To  conclude  this  topic:  How  can  we  then  subscribe  to 
the  sentiment,  that  prophecy,  when  originally  uttered,  was 
not  only  obscure  but  unintelligible  ?  The  men  who  utter- 
ed it  were  inspired ;  and  if  so,  did  they  not  understand 
what  they  meant  to  say  1  If  they  did,  then  have  they  not 
uttered  their  meaning  in  such  a  way  that  others  can  un- 
derstand them  7  If  all  this  be  denied,  then  two  conclu- 
sions inevitably  follow ;  the  first,  that  no  revelation  was 
made,  so  far  as  the  passages  in  question  are  concerned,  to 
the  prophets  themselves ;  for  certain  it  is,  that  no  revelation 
is  made  to  any  individual  who  can  understand  nothing  of 
that  which  is  communicated  ;  the  second,  that  others,  who 
were  addressed  by  the  prophets,  had  in  fact  no  revelation 
at  all  made  to  them  ;  for  if  inspired  men  did  not  understand 
the  things  that  were  uttered,  surely  uninspired  ones  could 


PROPHECY  NOT  INTELLIGIBLE.  61 

not  understand  them.  Can  any  sober  and  reasonable  man, 
now,  bring  himself  to  believe  in  such  a  state  of  things  as 
this  1  Prophets  speak  in  the  name  of  God,  and  men  are 
required  to  hear  on  penalty  of  death,  and  to  give  diligent 
heed  to  what  is  said.  Yet,  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
neither  the  prophet  nor  his  hearers  can  obtain  any  correct 
view  of  what  is  said.  The  church  is  to  wait  for  hundreds 
or  thousands  of  years,  before  any  true  light  dawns  upon  the 
darkness  of  the  oracles.  Fulfilment  alone  can  diffuse  this 
light.  The  treasure  has  been  locked  up,  and  withdrawn 
from  the  view  of  all ;  and  yet  men  were  bound  to  believe, 
that  it  was  a  precious  treasure,  and  would  at  some  period 
or  other  be  available  for  use.  But  no ;  it  never  is  truly 
available  for  any  part  of  that  purpose,  in  respect  to  which 
it  professes  to  have  been  given.  It  was  given  as  a  predic- 
tion— given  to  foretell  events  that  were  to  come.  Yet  it 
is  no  'prediction ;  for  it  never  is,  or  can  be,  understood,  un- 
til that  to  which  it  relates  has  already  taken  place.  Then, 
if  at  last  it  be  understood  at  all,  it  has  become  history ,  and 
not  prediction. 

Heathen  gods  and  oracles,  we  might  well  suspect,  would 
affect  mystery  and  concealment  in  some  such  way.  We 
know  that  this  has  been  often  done.  But  how  shall  we 
defend  the  idea,  that  the  God  of  truth,  "  the  entrance  of 
whose  word  giveth  light  and  understanding  to  the  simple ;" 
who  has  made  "  all  Scripture  profitable  for  doctrine,  for 
reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in  righteousness" 
(2  Tim.  3:  16) ;  who  has,  by  his  prophets,  uttered  predic- 
tions which  he  declares  to  be  "  a  light  shining  in  a  dark 
place"  (2  Pet.  1:19);  how  shall  we  defend  the  notion, 
that  he  has  uttered  predictions  to  the  ancient  and  to  the 
later  church,  which  neither  patriarch,  prophet,  apostle,  or 
martyr,  could  by  any  possibility  understand  1  Must  we 
not  rather  say,  with  the  great  apostle  to  the  Gentiles: 
6 


62  PROPHECY  NOT  INTELLIGIBLE. 

"  He  that  speaketh  in  an  unknown  tongue,  speaketh  not 
unto  men,  but  unto  God?"  1  Cor.  14:  2.  May  we  not, 
must  we  not,  insist  with  him,  that  "  if  the  trumpet  give  an 
uncertain  sound,  no  one  can  prepare  himself  for  the  bat- 
tle ?"  Is  it  not  lawful  to  argue  as  he  does,  and  say  :  "  Ex- 
cept ye  utter  by  the  tongue  words  easy  to  be  understood, 
how  shall  it  be  known  what  is  spoken  ?  For  ye  will  speak 
into  the  air."  1  Cor.  14:  7 — 9.  Nay  more:  "If  I  know 
not  the  meaning  of  the  voice,  I  shall  be  unto  him  that 
speaketh  a  barbarian,  and  he  that  speaketh  shall  be  a  bar- 
barian to  me."  1  Cor.  14:  11.  And  what  follows  from  all 
this,  according  to  the  judgment  of  Paul  himself?  The 
deduction  is  plain,  simple,  rational ;  it  is  this,  that  "  if 
there  be  no  interpreter,"  the  prophet  who  was  about  to 
speak  an  unknown  language  in  the  church,  "  must  keep 
silence."  1  Cor.  14:  28.  And  yet  after  all  this,  which 
stands  out  in  the  full  blaze  of  heaven's  light,  we  are  every 
day  told  by  one  class  of  interpreters,  that  the  ancient  pro- 
phets habitually  practised  the  very  things,  which  Paul  first 
argues  down  and  (I  might  say)  satirizes,  and  then  forbids. 
For  myself,  I  hope  to  be  forgiven,  if  I  am  slow  to  be- 
lieve in  such  a  case.  Why  should  we  convert  the  an- 
cient prophets  into  "  barbarians"  and  make  them  "  speak 
into  the  air  ?"  Why  should  we  strive  to  show,  that  they 
bear  a  character  like  that  of  the  heathen  prognosticators, 
the  (AvaxttL  and  fidvrug?  Can  we  suppose  an  omniscient 
God  to  resort  to  such  expedients  as  these,  merely  in  order 
to  impress  upon  men  the  idea  of  his  foreknowledge  and  of 
his  unsearchableness  ?  Nothing  but  conscious  short-sight- 
edness, and  a  feeling  of  inability  to  explain  difficult  passages 
of  Scripture,  would  naturally  conceal  itself  in  this  way. 
The  thought  of  such  mysterious  and  occult  dealing  is,  at 
least  in  my  view,  incompatible  with  the  character  of  him 
whose  name  is  Light  and  Love.    Yes ;  God  is  Light,  and  in 


PROPHECY  NOT  INTELLIGIBLE.  63 

him  is  no  darkness  at  all.  Nor  can  I  believe,  that  there  is 
a  prophet  or  an  apostle,  from  Enoch  down  to  the  evange- 
list John,  who  would  not  each  instantly  say,  could  they  be 
summoned  as  witnesses  in  the  present  case :  "  I  had  rather 
speak  five  words  with  my  understanding,  that  by  my  voice 
I  might  teach  others  also,  than  ten  thousand  words  in  an 
unknown  tongue."  1  Cor.  14:  19. 

I  will  only  add,  that  if  any  one  will  carefully  peruse  the 
books  of  Commentary  on  the  Scriptures,  and  the  Essays 
on  the  prophecies  which  are  extant  in  our  mother  tongue, 
he  will  soon  find,  that  the- double  sense  of  Scripture,  and 
particularly  of  Old  Testament  Scriptures  which  are  sup- 
posed to  contain  predictions  respecting  Christ  and  the 
church,  and  the  unintelligible  nature  of  prophecies  both  in 
the  Old  Testament  and  the  New  respecting  distant  and 
future  events,  are  made  grounds  of  interpretation  in  cases 
almost  without  number  and  beyond  credibility.  It  is  time 
that  this  region  of  mysticism  and  imagination  and  fancy 
should  be  traversed.  Let  us  not  be  overawed,  like  Ho- 
mer's Ulysses  and  Virgil's  Eneas,  when  we  get  into  the 
region  of  Umbrae.  No ;  rather  let  us  take  in  one  hand 
the  torch  of  revelation,  in  the  other  that  of  reason,  and  ad- 
vance boldly  into  the  darkest  recesses  of  this  nether  world. 
We  shall  find,  after  all,  that  there  is  nothing  there  but 
Umbrae,  with  which  we  shall  be  obliged  to  contend.  And 
with  all  the  show  that  may  be  made  of  discontent  at  our 
coming,  and  of  oppugnation  to  our  advancement,  by  the 
dwellers  in  that  region,  the  light  of  reason  and  revelation 
will  make  them  flee  away,  like  the  shadows  of  the  night 
before  the  morning  sun. 


64  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 


§  4.  Designations  of  time  in  the  prophecies. 

The  endless  discussions  and  difficulties  that  have  arisen, 
in  respect  to  these,  must  be  familiarly  known  to  every  one 
who  is  acquainted  with  the  interpretation  of  prophecy. 
Merely  to  recount  the  various  methods  of  interpreting  the 
designations  of  time,  connected  with  the  various  modes  of 
applying  the  prophecies  which  are  consequent  upon  these 
interpretations,  would  occupy  no  inconsiderable  volume. 
As  it  is  no  part  of  my  design  to  exhaust  the  subject, 
I  shall  forbear  in  this  case,  as  I  have  in  the  cases 
above,  to  bring  before  the  reader  any  thing  more  of  the 
views  of  others,  than  what  may  serve  as  a  kind  of  basis 
for  the  question  I  intend  to  discuss.  A  polemic  discus- 
sion which  would  have  a  mere  private  and  individual  bear- 
ing, is  altogether  remote  from  my  design. 

In  entering  ^jpon  the  consideration  of  the  great  and  dif- 
ficult subject  now  proposed,  I  must  beg  leave  to  bring  be- 
fore the  reader's  mind  some  of  the  plain  and  obvious  prin- 
ciples of  interpretation,  which  ought  to  be  observed  in  the 
pursuit  of  such  inquiries  as  the  present.  I  speak  of  the 
subject  as  being  a  difficult  one,  rather  because  of  the  di- 
vision of  opinion  among  critics  respecting  it,  and  because 
of  the  difficulty  of  ascertaining  historical  facts  in  some 
cases  that  are  related  to  the  prophecies,  than  because  I  ap- 
prehend the  subject  to  be  in  itself  very  difficult,  when  sim- 
ply considered  without  reference  to  any  particular  theory 
of  interpretation.  Once  fully  persuaded  that  the  usual 
laws  of  language  are  to  be  applied  to  the  designations  of 
time  in  the  prophetical  books,  our  course  is  quite  plain. 
If  the  periods  designated  are  to  be  understood  like  other 
limitations  of  time  in  the  Scriptures  and  in  all  other  books, 
then  we  have  merely  to  search  for  events  which  took  place 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  65 

at  the  respective  periods  named,  and  see  whether  they  ac- 
cord with  the  spirit,  tenor,  and  design  of  the  prophecy. 
When  these  events  are  disclosed,  and  their  appropriateness 
exhibited,  our  work  as  interpreters  is  done.  ^ 

First  of  all,  then,  I  would  remind  the  reader  of  one  of 
the  plainest  and  most  cogent  of  all  the  rules  of  Hermeneu- 
tics.  This  is,  that  every  passage  of  Scripture,  or  of  any 
other  book,  is  to  be  interpreted  as  bearing  its  plain  and 
primary  and  literal  sense,  unless  good  reason  can  be  given  /y 
why  it  should  be  tropically  understood. 

A  principle  so  plain  and  reasonable  as  tins,  scarcely 
needs  any  defence.  The  natural  sense  of  all  words  is  the 
original  and  literal  one.  The  very  phrase,  tropical  sense, 
ox  figurative  sense,  shows  that  the  natural  meaning  of  words 
is  to  be  laid  aside.  But  to  lay  this  aside,  there  must  be  s 
good  and  substantial  reasons. 

I  have  spoken  of  the  original  and  literal  sense  of  words 
as  being  the  natural  one.  The  original  sense  is  that  which 
the  word  was  coined  to  convey ;  and  of  course  this  is  the 
natural  sense.  But  many  words  often  deflect  from  this,  in 
a  considerable  measure,  without  bearing  what  is  usually 
called  a  tropical  sense ;  e.  g.  xqIvco  to  judge,  but  also  to 
condemn  and  to  vindicate ;  "tetf  to  perish,  but  also  to  wan- 
der, etc.  It  is  thus  that  branches  and  limbs,  as  it  were, 
spring  out  from  the  main  trunk,  which  is  the  original  mean- 
ing of  the  word  ;  yet  these,  however  numerous,  while  they 
preserve  merely  the  character  of  branches  and  limbs,  are 
not  employed  in  a  way  simply  tropical. 

When  we  admit  the  tropical  sense  of  a  passage,  it  must  v 
be  because,  if  literally  understood,  the  subject  and  predi- 
cate would  not  harmonize,  or  because  a  literal  sense  would 
be  frigid,  unmeaning,  or  inappropriate.  In  such  cases  we 
assume  the  position,  that  the  writer  was  guided  by  common 
sense,  and  did  not  mean  to  say  what  would  involve  a  con- 
6* 


66 


DESIGNATIONS  OP  TIME 


tradiction  or  an  absurdity,  or  what  is  frigid  and  inept. 
For  example ;  believing  most  fully  that  God  is  a  spirit, 
and  that  he  was  regarded  by  the  sacred  writers  as  such, 
when  we  find  such  a  sentence  as  the  following,  "God  is 
our  sun,"  we  say  the  word  sun  must  not  be  understood  in 
its  usual  acceptation,  but  in  a  tropical  sense.  And  why  1 
Because  a  spirit  is  not,  and  cannot  be,  a  sensible,  mate- 
rial, ever-varying,  perishable  object.  We  suppose  the  wri- 
ter to  mean,  in  such  a  case,  that  God  is  to  us  what  the  sun 
is  to  the  natural  world.  He  imparts  life  and  light,  and 
diffuses  his  blessings  every  where  and  without  cessation. 

In  all  cases  where  tropical  language  is  employed  by  the 
sacred  writers,  it  can  be  known  by  the  application  of  some 
one  of  the  principles  which  I  have  already  mentioned. 
The  judicious  application  of  these,  is  what  preeminently 
distinguishes  one  critic  from  another.  Enthusiasts  make 
shipwreck,  when  they  launch  upon  the  somewhat  perilous 
ocean  of  figure  and  metaphor  and  allegory ;  and  it  needs 
a  cool  head,  and  some  dexterity  in  practice,  to  guide  the 
ship  on  her  right  course  and  always  keep  her  safe  and  in 
perfect  trim. 
^/  Without  saying  a  word  more  upon  this  general  subject, 
or  upon  the  frequency  of  tropical  language  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, I  would  suggest,  with  special  reference  to  the  sub- 
ject before  us,  that  of  all  the  various  ingredients  of  which 
language  is  composed,  and  which  render  it  capable  of  a 
tropical  use,  the  designations  of  time,  space,  and  numbers, 
appear  to  be  the  least  susceptible  of  being  so  employed. 
The  rareness  of  such  a  usage  in  regard  to  time,  all  must 
admit,  even  those  who  give  such  a  meaning  to  designations 
of  time  in  the  books  of  Daniel  and  of  the  Revelation. 
Compared  with  the  number  of  instances  in  the  whole  Bible, 
in  which  periods  of  time  are  named,  and  which  (as  all 
agree)  must  be  literally  interpreted,  designations  of  this 


(y 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  67 

nature  in  the  particular  books  just  named,  to  which  a  tropi- 
cal or  symbolical  sense  is  assigned,  are  very  few,  even  on 
the  ground  of  those  who  advocate  the  symbolical  sense. 
Perhaps  we  may  find  reason,  in  the  sequel,  to  believe  them 
to  be  much  fewer  than  such  interpreters  would  admit. 

One  thing  in  respect  to  this  whole  matter  seems  to  be 
very  plain,  viz.,  that  if  we  do,  in  any  case,  give  to  a  desig- 
nation of  time  an  import  different  from  its  usual  and  natu- 
ral meaning,  we  must,  in  order  to  justify  ourselves,  be 
moved  by  substantial  and  cogent  reasons  to  interpret  in 
this  manner.  If  no  such  reasons  can  be  given ;  if  the 
plain  and  obvious  sense  fits  both  the  passage  in  which  a 
designation  of  time  stands  and  the  general  aim  of  the  wri- 
ter ;  if  facts  can  be  pointed  out  which  will  accord  with  the 
prediction  when  literally  understood ;  and  if  a  tropical  or 
symbolical  sense  would  be  irrelevant,  alien  from  the  usual 
method  of  speaking,  and  in  fact  even  against  a  usage  which 
is  nearly  universal ;  then  we  cannot  in  any  way  be  justified 
in  giving  to  designated  periods  of  time  a  secondary  or  tropi- 
cal sense.  We  are  bound  to  interpret  them  in  the  simple 
manner  in  which  they  are  presented  to  us. 

I  must  solicit  the  reader  to  weigh  well  the  sentiments 
which  are  comprised  in  the  preceding  paragraph.  If  they 
are  conceded  to  be  correct,  (and  to  me  it  does  not  seem 
that  they  can  be  reasonably  called  in  question),  then  they 
must  have  a  very  important  bearing  on  the  interpretation 
of  such  parts  of  Daniel  and  of  the  Apocalypse  as  have  rela- 
tion to  periods  of  time. 

It  is  of  some  importance,  moreover,  at  this  stage  of  our 
inquiry,  to  pass  in  review  before  us  the  general  usage  of  the 
biblical  writers  in  regard  to  numbers  and  designations  of 
time. 

In  respect  to  numbers ;  we  may  say,  that  there  is  a  lite- 
ral and  a  tropical  sense  of  the  words  which  designate  them, 


68  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

in  like  manner  as  there  is  of  a  multitude  of  other  words. 
We  should  not  expect  this,  perhaps,  if  we  reasoned  about 
such  a  case  in  merely  an  a  priori  way ;  but  facts  make  the 
whole  matter  very  plain. 

The  literal  sense  of  numbers  needs  no  illustration.  Ev- 
ery one  spontaneously  understands  it.  The  tropical  sense 
is  also  easily  understood,  but  it  requires,  in  this  place,  some 
illustration. 

In  most,  if  not  all,  languages,  usage  has  affixed  to  cer- 
tain numbers,  (different  ones,  it  may  be,  in  different 
tongues),  a  kind  of  generic  idea  as  to  quantity,  instead  of 
the  specific  and  definite  idea  which  the  number  strictly  in- 
terpreted would  convey.  For  example  :  Peter  asks  his  di- 
vine Master  how  often  he  ought  to  forgive  the  trespass  of 
a  brother ;  and  in  order  to  put  the  question,  whether  this 
should  be  done  to  any  considerable  extent,  he  throws  it  in- 
to the  following  form  :  "  Shall  I  forgive  him  until  seven 
times?"  Matt.  18:21.  The  answer  is:  "Until  seventy 
times  seven."  Now  seven  times  here  is  not  designed  to  be 
literally  interpreted,  for  it  expresses  merely  a  considerable 
number  of  times.  In  like  manner,  seventy  times  seven  is 
not  to  be  literally  interpreted,  for  here  it  plainly  means  an 
indefinite  number  of  times,  or  at  least  very  many  times, 
i.  e.  so  many  as  would  equal  the  number  of  offences  what- 
ever that  might  be. 

In  the  same  way  a  large  number  of  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture are  to  be  understood  ;  e.  g.  "  In  seven  troubles  no 
evil  shall  touch  thee,"  Job  5:  19.  "  Wisdom  hath  hewn 
out  her  seven  pillars,"  Prov.  9:  1.  "  Seven  abominations 
are  in  the  heart"  [of  a  dissembler],  Prov.  26:  25.  "  The 
light  of  the  sun  shall  be  sevenfold,"  Is.  30-26.  "  A  just 
man  falleth  seven  times,  and  riseth  again,"  Prov.  24:  16. 
"  Thou  shalt  go  out  before  thine  enemy  one  way,  and  flee 
seven  ways,"  Deut.  28:  7,  25.     No  sane  interpreter  would 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  69 

ever  dream  of  construing  these  and  the  like  passages  in  the 
Bible  in  a  literal  way.  He  spontaneously  connects  them 
with  the  idea  of  a  considerable,  but  indefinite  quantity. 
Of  course  he  gives  to  the  number  seven,  in  such  a  case,  a 
tropical  sense. 

In  like  manner  the  number  three  is  somewhat  often  em- 
ployed in  the  sacred  writings ;  and  occasionally  the  number 
ten,  forty,  a  hundred,  and  especially  a  thousand.  This  last 
number  is  employed  where  a  quantity  of  time,  space,  etc., 
is  intended  to  be  designated,  which  is  exceedingly  great, 
or  immeasurably  large.  Thus  the  Psalmist :  "  A  thou- 
sand years  in  thy  sight  are  but  as  yesterday,"  Ps.  90:  4. 
"  One  day  is  with  the  Lord  as  a  thousand  years,  and  a  thou- 
sand years  as  one  day,"  2  Pet.  3:  8. 

In  cases  of  this  nature,  there  scarcely  ever  arises  a  doubt 
about  the  proper  interpretation  of  the  words  designating 
number.  When  the  context  and  the  subject  discussed  show, 
that  it  would  be  no  object  with  the  writer  to  designate  a 
definite  and  specific  number,  then  the  word  employed  to 
designate  it  is  taken  in  a  tropical  sense  ;  and,  in  general, 
cases  of  this  nature  are  so  plain  that  scarcely  any  reader 
misunderstands  them.  In  a  word ;  the  subject-matter  de- 
termines and  defines  the  nature  of  the  affirmation  respect- 
ing it. 

The  original  reason  why  some  numbers  were  chosen  in 
preference  to  others,  and  what  that  was  in  them  which  led 
to  such  a  usus  loquendi,  would  be  a  curious  and  interest- 
ing subject  of  inquiry.  Bahr  has  cast  some  light  on  this, 
in  his  Symbolik ;  but  my  present  design  renders  it  imprac- 
ticable even  to  advert  to  any  specific  reasons  for  the  selec- 
tion of  this  or  that  number  for  the  tropical  use.  Enough 
for  my  purpose,  that  the  fact  of  such  a  usage  admits  of  no 
reasonable  denial,  nor  even  reasonable  question. 

Nothing  needs  to  be  said,  at  present,  respecting  the  use 


70  DESIGNATIONS  OP  TIME 

of  numbers  in  Scripture,  unless  it  be,  that  occasionally 
there  is  a  shade  of  tropical  meaning  somewhat  different 
from  that  which  has  been  already  pointed  out,  and  which 
might  perhaps  be  named  symbolical.  Thus  seven  is  often 
said  to  be  the  perfect  number,  i.  e.  it  designates  the  gene- 
ral idea  of  completion  or  perfection.  Thus  in  Is.  xi.  seven 
spirits  are  ascribed  to  the  Messiah,  i.  e.  he  is  to  be  fur- 
nished with  such  endowments  as  will  render  him  a  com- 
plete and  perfect  Saviour.  In  like  manner  the  seven  spi- 
rits of  God,  mentioned  in  Rev.  1:  4,  are  interpreted  by 
some  highly  respectable  critics.  And  again,  in  Rev.  3:  1, 
the  Messiah,  it  is  affirmed,  "  hath  the  seven  Spirits  of 
God  ;"  which  is  also  interpreted  by  many  in  the  same  man- 
ner as  in  Is.  xi.  In  many  other  passages,  also,  the  num- 
ber seven  plainly  denotes  the  idea  of  completion  or  sufficien- 
cy ;  and  when  thus  employed  we  may  say,  that  it  has  a 
symbolical  sense,  i.  e.  it  stands  as  a  symbol  for  something 
which  is  not  to  be  scanned  by  definite  quantity,  but  by  the 
relation  which  seven  may  bear  to  some  idea  of  quality, 
i.  e.  completion,  perfection.  It  matters  not,  for  the  inter- 
preter, whether  seven  in  its  own  nature  stands  related  to 
perfection ;  enough  that  usage  pre- supposes  this  and  em- 
ploys language  accordingly. 

Besides  the  number  seven,  we  may  find  not  a  few  cases 
of  the  number  three  which  are  employed  much  in  the  same 
way,  although  it  may  lack  something  of  the  fulness  and 
completion  which  the  number  seven  more  naturally  desig- 
nates. 

But  let  the  reader  beware  not  to  extend  the  tropical  use 
of  numbers  to  all  and  any  numbers  of  every  class.  It 
would  be  a  great  mistake  so  to  interpret  the  Scriptures. 
The  usages  of  language  confine  the  tropical  meaning  to  a 
few  leading  and  specially  significant  numbers,  such  as  have 
been  already  designated.     At  least  such  is  the  usage  of  the 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  71 

Scriptures.  The  consequences  of  such  a  fact  are  of  seri- 
ous import  to  the  interpreter.  The  probability  is,  of 
course,  that  all  numbers,  not  belonging  to  that  select  and 
limited  class,  are  to  be  literally  interpreted.  Indeed,  it  is 
a  matter  of  course  so  to  interpret  them  ;  and  nothing  but 
the  most  cogent  reasons,  drawn  from  the  context,  can  justi- 
fy any  other  interpretation.  In  fact,  even  those  numbers 
which  are  often  employed  in  a  tropical  or  symbolical  way, 
are  to  be  thus  understoood,  only  when  there  is  good  rea- 
son to  be  found  in  the  context  for  supposing  that  the  writer 
meant  to  employ  them  in  this  way.  Any  other  method  of 
interpreting  the  Scriptures  would  lead  to  the  most  arbitra- 
ry and  extravagant  conclusions. 

From  the  usage  which  has  respect  to  numbers,  we  will 
now  proceed  to  that  which  has  respect  to  periods  of  time. 
Here  also  is  a  literal  and  a  tropical  usage.  The  first  needs 
no  explanation ;  the  second  may  be  illustrated  in  a  few 
words. 

It  is  said  of  Jehovah :  "  Thy  years  shall  not  fail."  Here 
the  word  years  is  not  confined  to  periods  of  360  or  365 
days,  but  means  time  indefinite,  which  is  measured,  so  far 
as  we  reckon  it,  by  years.  So  the  word  day  and  days  are 
often  employed  in  a  generic  sense.  Thus  :  "  In  the  latter 
day ;"  "  Thy  days  are  numbered ;"  "  The  day  of  the  Lord ;" 
and  other  very  frequent  expressions  of  the  like  meaning. 
So  is  it  also  with  the  word  hour.  The  sum  of  all  is,  that 
the  specific  designations  of  time,  viz.  day,  days,  year, 
years,  etc.,  are  often  employed  in  the  generic  sense  of 
time.  In  all  such  cases,  synecdoche,  i.  e.  a  figure  of  speech 
where  a  part  is  taken  for  the  whole  and  vice  versa,  is  to  be 
found ;  and  no  figure  in  rhetoric  is  more  usual  than  this, 
in  all  languages  whatever. 

Thus  it  is  with  the  designations  of  time,  when  they  stand 
in  a  simple  state,  unconnected  with  numbers  which  limit 


72  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

them  and  render  them  specific.  But  very  different  is  the 
case,  when  they  stand  connected  with  such  limitations  by 
numbers.  The  very  fact  that  numerals  are  connected 
with  them,  is  of  itself  a  proof  that  the  writer  means  to  limit 
them.  If  there  be  any  examples  of  a  different  usage,  they 
can  be  only  such  as  mark  a  period  which  may  be  symbolical, 
in  like  manner  as  we  have  seen  the  numbers  seven,  three, 
etc.,  sometimes  to  be  symbolically  employed.  While  we 
concede  that  there  are  examples  of  this  nature,  yet  they 
are  certainly  very  rare.  A  thousand  years  may  be,  in  some 
passages,  comprised  among  these  examples  ;  and  possibly 
seven  years  and  three  years  may  in  some  cases  be  supposed 
to  belong  here.  But  of  this  last  supposition,  there  is  no 
little  reason,  as  it  seems  to  me,  to  doubt. 

At  all  events,  nothing  but  an  imperious  necessity  can 
justify  us  in  explaining  years  or  days,  when  accompanied 
with  definite  numerals,  in  a  tropical  way,  except  the  neces- 
sity of  the  case.  If  any  good  and  appropriate  sense  can 
be  made  without  resort  to  such  an  expedient,  we  are  clear- 
ly bound,  as  interpreters,  to  abide  by  it. 

Our  way  is  now  prepared  to  investigate  the  designations 
of  time  in  Daniel  and  in  the  Apocalypse.  And  here  the 
designations  of  times  are,  for  the  most  part,  accompanied 
by  numerals  ;  and  of  course,  unless  some  valid  and  satis- 
factory reason  can  be  given  for  a  different  interpretation, 
they  are  to  be  considered  as  intended  simply  to  mark  the 
periods  which  they  designate.  No  one,  we  may  presume, 
will  call  in  question  a  principle  so  plain,  and  so  obviously 
the  dictate  of  reason  as  this. 

Let  us  make  now  the  supposition,  that  the  times  speci- 
fied in  the  book  of  Daniel  and  in  the  Apocalypse  may  all 
be  understood  according  to  their  plain  and  obvious  import, 
and  that  when  thus  understood  they  not  only  accord  with 
the  design  of  the  writer,  but  are  indispensable  (in  this 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  73 

mode  of  interpretation)  to  the  object  which  he  has  in  view ; 
is  there  any  one  who  can  reasonably  call  in  question  that  ex- 
egesis which  interprets  them  agreeably  to  the  common  rf/ 
usages  of  language?  Apart  from  all  preconceived  and  fa- 
vourite schemes  of  interpretation,  where  a  particular  end  is 
to  be  accomplished  by  giving  to  numbers  a  symbolic  sense, 
no  considerate  man  would  hesitate  to  subscribe  to  such  a 
sentiment.  It  becomes  then  an  imperious  duty  of  the  inter- 
preter to  examine  thoroughly  the  nature  of  the  case  before 
us,  and  see  whether  Daniel  and  John  may  not  have  em- 
ployed the  designations  of  time,  exhibited  in  their  works, 
in  the  usual  and  ordinary  manner.  And  if  it  should  turn 
out,  upon  examination,  to  be  matter  of  fact,  that  historical 
occurrences  predicted  by  them  accord  with  those  designa- 
tions when  interpreted  in  a  simple  and  obvious  way,  who 
will  venture  to  maintain  with  confidence,  that  any  other 
interpretation  than  the  obvious  one  is  to  be  given  to  the 
periods  in  question  ?  I  know  indeed  that  there  are  some,, 
who  are  apparently  so  attached  to  favourite  methods  of  in- 
terpreting, that  not  even  an  argument  of  so  plain  and  co- 
gent a  nature  will  satisfy  them.  Among  intelligent,  consid- 
erate, and  impartial  men,  however,  I  am  persuaded  that 
such  an  argument,  if  well  supported,  will  find  a  patient 
hearing  if  not  a  welcome  reception. 

The  truth  plainly  is,  that  the  public  mind  begins  to  grow 
weary  of  being  tossed  so  long  on  a  tempestuous  sea  of  con- 
jecture, in  regard  to  the  meaning  of  Scripture.  Men  of 
inquiring  minds  wish  to  know  what  the  Bible  says,  when 
interpreted  by  principles  of  exegesis  which  are  stable,  well 
grounded,  and  capable  of  an  honest  and  open  and  intelligi- 
ble defence.  There  is  no  end  of  the  arbitrary  and  the  ™ 
fanciful.  When  we  are  once  cast  upon  such  a  sea,  it  is 
quite  impossible  to  tell  with  certainty  what  harbour  we 
shall  ultimately  make.  Like  the  Corinthians  who  had 
7 


74  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

every  man  his  own  interpretation ,  the  arbitrary  and  fanciful 
interpreters  of  our  own  times  scarcely  ever  agree ;  and 
even  if  they  do,  whether  the  church  derives  any  edification 
from  their  views  of  prophecy,  is  a  serious  question  indeed. 
At  all  events,  if  a  more  sober,  rational,  and  normal  me- 
thod of  interpretation  can  fairly  be  pointed  out,  sooner  or 
later  the  public  mind  will  approve  of  it  and  admit  it. 

Enough  has  been  said  to  show,  that  the  plain  and  obvious 
interpretation  of  numbers  in  the  prophecies  is  to  be  fol- 
lowed, unless  there  be  cogent  reasons  for  a  departure  from 
this  rule.  If  there  be  indeed  such  reasons,  we  may  then 
admit  a  tropical  or  symbolical  sense ;  for  so  much  I  most 
readily  concede.  But  there  are  only  two  sources,  so  far  as 
I  can  perceive,  from  which  reasons  of  such  a  nature  can  be 
drawn.  The  first  is,  analogy  in  other  parts  of  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  the  second,  the  exigencies  of  the  context.  Let  us  pur- 
sue the  examination  of  our  subject,  by  inquiring  how  the 
matter  before  us  stands,  in  relation  to  each  of  these. 
\/        First,  analogy  with  other  parts  of  Scripture. 

It  is  a  singular  fact,  that  the  great  mass  of  interpreters 
in  the  English  and  American  world  have,  for  many  years, 
been  wont  to  understand  the  days  designated  in  Daniel 
and  in  the  Apocalypse,  as  the  representatives  or  symbols 
of  years.  I  have  found  it  difficult  to  trace  the  origin  of  this 
general,  I  might  say,  almost  universal  custom.  Without 
venturing  on  a  positive  statement,  I  am  inclined  to  believe 
that  we  may  trace  it  mainly  to  the  distinguished  Joseph 
Mede,  who  lived  and  wrote  during  the  first  quarter  of  the 
seventeenth  century.  His  Clavis  Apocalyptica  (Key  to  the 
Apocalypse)  excited  much  attention  when  it  was  published, 
and  indeed  for  a  long  time  afterwards.  Many  criticisms 
were  made  upon  it  by  the  learned ;  and  in  the  explanation 
and  defence  of  the  positions  which  he  had  taken  in  that 
a  work,  Mede  wrote  many  comments,  essays,  and  letters. 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  75 

The  learning,  piety,  and  (in  general)  sobriety  of  mind, 
which  this  distinguished  work  exhibited,  gave  it  great  in- 
fluence in  the  religious  community  in  England,  and  even- 
tually in  America.  Abroad,  Vitringa  and  others  attacked 
some  of  its  leading  positions,  and,  as  was  generally  con- 
ceded, overthrew  them.  Still  the  influence  of  this  work 
on  English  commentary,  has  been  felt  down  to  the  present 
hour.  Particularly  is  it  so  in  regard  to  the  subject  of 
reckoning  time;  the  consideration  of  which  is  now  be- 
fore us. 

Mede  assumes  the  position,  that  the  days  in  Daniel  and 
in  the  Apocalypse  are  to  be  regarded  as  the  symbols  of 
years.  In  his  Remains  on  some  Passages  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse, chap,  ix.,  he  goes  at  some  length  into  a  defence  of 
this  position.  His  chief  reliance  for  aid  to  establish  this 
position,  is  on  the  multiplicity  and  continuance  of  events 
which  are  predicted  as  standing  in  connection  with  the 
periods  named.  The  amount  of  all  is,  that,  in  his  view, 
such  events  must  occupy  more  time  than  is  assigned  to 
them,  if  the  natural  and  obvious  meaning  of  the  designa- 
tions of  time  should  be  admitted.  He  also  appeals  to  Dan. 
9:  24,  as  justifying  his  interpretation. 

The  former  reason  will  be  touched  upon,  in  its  proper 
place.  The  latter  plainly  ranges  itself  under  the  question 
now  before  us. 

Since  the  time  of  Mede,  interpreters  have  made  addi- 
tions to  the  stock  of  such  analogies  as  will  help  to  support 
the  interpretation  of  one  day  as  being  the  symbol  of  a  yeat. 
Our  first  business,  then,  is  to  examine  these  alleged  analo- 
gies. 

I  begin  with  those  passages  on  which  the  most  stress 
has  apparently  been  laid,  down  to  the  present  time.  In 
Ezek.  4:  5,  6,  the  prophet  represents  himself  as  having  re- 
ceived a  command  to  "  lie  upon  his  left  side  390  days,  in 


76  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

order  that  so  he  might  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  house  of  Is- 
rael ;"  also  to  "  lie  upon  his  right  side  40  days,  in  order 
to  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  house  Judah."  It  is  then  added 
expressly  by  divine  monition :  "  I  have  appointed  each  day 
for  a  year,''''  i.  e.  each  day  is  the  symbol  of  a  year,  in  re- 
gard to  the  duration  of  the  time  in  which  Israel  and  Judah 
shall  be  chastised. 

In  respect  to  this  account  of  the  prophet's  symbolic  ac- 
tion, we  may  remark,  first,  that  it  would  be  absurd  to  sup- 
pose that  the  symbol  should  be  of  as  long  continuance  as 
the  thing  symbolized.  The  symbolic  actions  were  to  be 
performed  by  one  individual,  and  therefore  could  not  con- 
tinue for  390  years,  and  after  that  for  40  years  more.  Of 
course,  if  Ezekiel  were  in  person  to  exhibit  the  symbols 
enjoined,  there  was  no  feasible  manner  of  doing  this,  ex- 
cept by  making  a  short  period  the  symbol  of  a  long  one, 
i.  e.  a  day  to  symbolize  a  year. 

Whether  the  prophet  actually  performed  the  symbolic 
actions  in  question,  or  not,  is  of  no  consequence  to  the 
present  discussion.  The  representation  of  such  a  symbol 
to  be  exhibited,  would  convey  the  same  instruction  for  sub- 
stance to  the  Jews,  as  the  acting  of  it  all  out.  We  could 
only  say,  in  the  latter  case,  that  the  vividness  of  the  repre- 
sentation would  be  augmented.     But, 

Secondly,  the  prophet  is  expressly  told,  in  this  case,  that 
one  day  is  to  be  the  symbol  of  a  year.  Why?  Plainly 
because  it  would  never  enter  the  mind  of  himself  or  of  any 
other  man,  that  such  could  be  the  case,  unless  he  were  ex- 
pressly informed  of  it.  What  bearing  then,  in  the  way  of 
analogy,  does  or  can  this  have  upon  the  designations  of 
time  in  Daniel  and  in  the  Apocalypse  1  Certainly  none ; 
for  in  these  books  we  have  no  information  given  of  such  a 
nature.  The  writers  never  once  hint  at  such  a  mode  of 
interpretation.     What  follows,  then,  except  that  we  must 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  77 

interpret  these  books  in  the  usual  way  ?  A  special  com- 
munication to  Ezekiel  was  deemed  necessary  in  order  to 
his  understanding  that  days  would  or  could  be  the  symbols 
of  years.  Such  a  communication  was  in  fact  necessary; 
for  nothing  can  be  more  natural  to  all  men,  than  to  inter- 
pret plain  designations  of  time  in  the  simple  and  usual 
way.  To  prevent  Ezekiel  from  doing  so,  the  symbolic 
significancy  of  days  is  a  matter  of  express  injunction:. 
This  of  course  constitutes  a  good  and  adequate  reason  for 
adopting  the  symbolical  meaning  of  the  word  day  in  the 
passage  before  us. 

But  how  is  it  with  the  designation  of  times  in  Daniel 
and  in  the  Apocalypse,  where  no  such  injunction  or  ex- 
planation is  given  ?  There  can  be,  as  it  seems  to  me,  but 
one  answer  to  this  question  ;  which  is,  that  those  times  are 
of  course  to  be  reckoned  in  the  usual  manner.  Instead  of 
being  aided,  then,  by  an  appeal  to  Ezek.  4:  5,  6,  we  find 
that  a  principle  is  in  fact  recognized  there,  which  makes 
directly  against  the  interpretation  which  we  are  calling  in 
question.  The  express  exception  as  to  the  usual  mode  of 
reckoning,  which  is  there  virtually  made,  goes,  under  such 
circumstances,  directly  to  show  that  the  general  rule  would 
necessitate  us  to  adopt  a  different  interpretation. 

The  same  principles  apply  to  another  passage  in  Num: 
xiv.,  to  which  appeal  has  more  recently  been  made  by 
some  with  great  confidence.  When  Moses  was  approach- 
ing the  land  of  Canaan,  spies  were  sent  out  to  go  and 
search  the  country,  and  make  report  concerning  it  on  their 
return.  They  were  40  days  in  executing  their  mission  ; 
and  when  they  returned,  most  of  them  gave  in  a  bad  re- 
port of  the  land,  which  occasioned  great  discontent  and  re- 
bellion in  the  camp  of  Israel.  This  was  displeasing  to 
God,  and  he  declared  that  Israel  should  wander  in  the  de- 
sert for  40  years,  each  year  corresponding  to  one  of  the  40 
4* 


78  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

days  during  which  the  spies  had  been  absent,  Num.  14: 
33,  34. 

Here  now  we  perceive  at  once,  that  the  whole  is  de- 
pendent on  special  divine  appointment.  Had  the  declara- 
tion been,  that  '  Israel  should  wander  in  the  desert  accord- 
ing to  the  time  in  which  the  spies  had  been  absent,'  would 
any  one  have  ever  supposed  that  40  years  were  meant  1 
It  is  conceded  that  they  would  not,  in  the  very  fact  that 
express  mention  is  made,  that  days  are  to  stand  as  the 
symbols  of  years.  Without  a  declaration  of  this  import, 
no  one  would  ever  have  surmised  that  the  case  was  such. 
Now  as  neither  Daniel  nor  the  Apocalypse  ever  mention 
such  a  mode  of  counting  days  for  years,  what  else  can  we 
do,  except  to  follow  the  common  laws  of  language  in  the 
interpretation  of  their  predictions  1 

It  should  be  noted,  also,  that  both  the  cases  above  re- 
cited are  dependent  on  and  connected  with  the  duration 
of  symbolic  and  significant  actions.  These  actions,  from 
their  very  nature,  must  be  of  short  continuance,  in  order 
to  be  a  proper  means  of  instruction  for  the  generation  then 
living ;  but  to  reason  from  these  to  cases  like  those  in 
Daniel  and  John,  where  no  symbol  of  the  nature  in  ques- 
tion is  employed,  must  as  one  would  naturally  suppose,  be 
deemed  very  inconclusive  and  unsatisfactory  by  every  con- 
siderate man.  In  Ezek.  and  in  Numbers,  a  short  period 
of  days  in  which  certain  actions  are  performed,  is  made  the 
symbol  of  a  long  period  in  which  a  continued  and  impor- 
tant series  of  actions  and  occurrences  are  to  take  place. 
But  in  the  Apocalypse  and  in  Daniel,  there  is  merely  one 
simple  designation  of  time  during  which  future  events  are 
to  take  place. 

Since  then  the  instances  in  Ezek.  and  in  Numbers  are 
plainly  so  dissimilar  to  those  in  the  other  books  named,  it 
is  no  wonder  that  Joseph  Mede  did  not  venture  to  appeal 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  79 

to  them  in  support  of  his  supposition.  He  has  appealed, 
however,  to  Daniel  9:  24 ;  and  as  others  have  followed  him 
in  this  appeal,  it  will  be  necessary  briefly  to  examine  this 
passage. 

Daniel  had  been  meditating  on  the  accomplishment  of 
the  70  years  of  exile  for  the  Jews  which  Jeremiah  had  pre- 
dicted ;  Jer.  25:  12.  29:  10.  Dan.  9:  1—3.  At  the  close 
of  the  fervent  supplication  for  his  people  which  he  makes, 
in  connection  with  his  meditation,  Gabriel  appears,  and  an- 
nounces to  him  that  "  Seventy  sevens  are  appointed  for  his 
people,"  as  it  respects  the  time  then  future,  in  which  va- 
rious and  very  important  events  are  to  take  place.  Our 
translation  renders  the  words  B?3J33J  B?3;-?5Jj  seventy  weeks. 
But  throughout  the  Scriptures  there  is,  if  we  except  three  in- 
stances in  the  book  of  Daniel,  no  such  form  as  Qft92NEi  which 
means  weeks.  This  is  only  and  always  rriypw  or  p-ia^tMJ  . 
The  form  jfaj^tti  ,  therefore,  which  is  a  regular  masculine 
plural,  is  no  doubt  purposely  chosen  to  designate  the  plural 
of  seven  ;  and  with  great  propriety  here,  inasmuch  as  there 
are  many  sevens  which  are  to  be  joined  together  in  one 
common  sum.  The  manner  in  which  I  have  translated 
the  words  in  question,  therefore,  gives  an  exact  representa- 
tion of  the  Hebrew  original.  Daniel  had  been  meditating 
on  the  close  of  the  70  years  of  Hebrew  exile,  and  the  an- 
gel now  discloses  to  him  a  new  period  of  seventy  times  seven, 
in  which  still  more  important  events  are  to  take  place. 
"  Seventy  sevens,"  or  (to  use  Greek  phraseology)  "  seventy 
heptades  are  determined  upon  thy  people."  Heptades  of 
what  1  Of  days,  or  of  years  1  No  one  can  doubt  what  the 
answer  is.  Daniel  had  been  making  diligent  search  re- 
specting the  70  years ;  and,  in  such  a  connection,  nothing 
but  seventy  heptades  of  years  could  be  reasonably  supposed 
to  be  meant  by  the  angel.  But  independently  of  this,  the 
nature  of  the  case  is  sufficient.     Years  are  the  measure  of 


80  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

all  considerable  periods  of  time.  When  the  angel  speaks, 
then,  in  reference  to  certain  events,  and  declares  that  they 
are  to  take  place  during  seventy  heptades,  it  is  a  matter  of 
course  to  suppose  him  to  mean  years.  If  he  had  not 
meant  so,  then  some  word  would  have  been  added  in  order 
to  render  it  plain  what  his  meaning  was. 

And  so  it  actually  happens,  in  Dan.  10:  2,  3,  where  he 
again  employs  the  peculiar  plural,  B^fSJfcS".  But  as  the  pe- 
riod designated  in  this  last  passage  has  respect  to  a  season 
of  fasting  which  the  prophet  had  kept,  and  as  this  could  not 
be  a  period  of  three  years,  so  the  writer  adds,  after  the 
words  three  sevens  (in  our  version,  three  whole  weeks),  the 
word  u"1?^,  days.  He  fasted  "  three  sevens  as  to  days"  is 
a  literal  and  grammatical  version.  This  means,  indeed, 
three  whole  weeks,  as  our  version  has  it ;  but  the  shape  of 
the  Hebrew  expression  is  different  from  this. 

These  examples  render  it  quite  plain,  therefore,  that 
when,  in  Dan.  9:  24,  the  angel  speaks  of  seventy  heptades 
he  must  of  course  be  understood  as  meaning  so  many  hep- 
tades of  years  =  490  years.  He  has  not  made  days  at  all 
the  representative  of  years,  in  this  case,  but  merely  and 
simply  designated  the  number  of  years.  And  as  to  chap. 
10:  2,  3,  surely  no  one  will  contend  that  Daniel  fasted 
twenty-one  years ;  which  must  be  the  conclusion,  however, 
if  days  are  to  be  regarded  as  the  representatives  of  years,  in 
the  writings  of  this  prophet.  But  in  9:  24,  as  has  been 
said,  days  are  not  brought  at  all  into  question.  The  phra- 
seology employed  (seventy  heptades)  is  indeed  elliptical ; 
yet  it  is  not  at  all  obscure,  for  every  mind  spontaneously 
supplies  the  word  years,  in  such  a  connection. 

The  appeal  to  Daniel,  then,  for  an  example  of  employing 
days  for  years,  is  certainly  not  well  directed,  when  made 
to  the  passage  in  question.  Indeed,  the  exact  contrary  of 
such  a  usage  is  manifest,  when  we  read  onward  only  six 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  81 

verses  more ;  for  in  10:  2,  3,  the  ground  assumed  would 
necessarily  make  Daniel  to  say,  that  he  fasted  in  the  most 
rigid  manner  for  twenty-one  years  !  The  credibility  of  this, 
on  any  ground,  needs  not  to  be  argued  against. 

Thus  much  for  analogies  in  the  Old  Testament  Scrip- 
tures, that  have  respect  to  the  modes  of  designating  time. 
Not  one  of  the  cases  that  have  been  examined,  (and  these 
are  all  on  which  any  reliance  can  be  placed),  answers  at 
all  the  end  for  which  an  appeal  is  made,  by  the  interpreters 
whose  opinion  is  under  examination. 

But  I  will  not  content  myself,  in  this  case,  with  the  ex- 
amination of  these  alleged  analogies.  Another  duty  re- 
mains ;  and  this  is,  to  produce  examples  of  the  contrary 
mode  of  reckoning ;  examples  which  show,  that  in  prophe- 
cy, as  elsewhere,  the  designations  of  time  are  to  be  under- 
stood in  their  natural  and  obvious  sense,  unless  there  is 
some  direction  or  intimation  that  we  must  not  interpret 
them  in  this  manner. 

In  Gen.  6:  3,  God  announces  that  the  days  of  men,  be- 
fore the  flood  comes  upon  them,  shall  be  120  years.  By 
the  rule  of  one  day  for  a  year,  this  would  amount  to  43,920 
years ;  in  which  case  it  is  not  so  much  to  be  wondered  at, 
that  the  antediluvians  were  not  moved  by  fear  in  conse- 
quence of  Noah's  threats.  In  Gen.  7:  4,  God  declares, 
that  after  seven  days  he  will  cause  it  to  rain  upon  the  earth 
forty  days  and  forty  nights.  Is  this  then  the  same  as  say- 
ing, that  after  seven  years  it  shall  begin  to  rain,  and  then 
shall  continue  to  do  so  for  the  period  of  forty  years  ?  In 
Gen.  15:  13  it  is  predicted,  that  Abraham's  posterity  shall 
be  bondmen  in  Egypt  400  years.  Does  this  mean,  that 
they  shall  live  there  in  that  capacity  during  144,000  years  ? 
Gen.  40:  1  predicts  seven  years  of  plenty  and  seven  of  fa- 
mine to  Egypt.  Can  this  mean  2,520  years  of  each  in 
succession  ?     In  Num.  14:  33  it  is  declared,  that  Israel 


82  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

shall  wander  in  the  wilderness  forty  years.  Does  this  mean 
14,490  years  ?  Does  not  history  inform  us  what  the  exact 
and  actual  period  was?  In  Ezek.  29:  11,  12,  there  is  a 
threat  of  forty  years'  wasting  to  the  Egyptians.  Does  this 
mean  14,499  1  In  Jonah  3:  4  it  is  declared,  that  Nineveh 
shall  be  overthrown  within  forty  days ;  in  Is.  7:  8  it  is  said, 
that  Ephraim  shall  be  broken  within  sixty-five  years ;  in 
Is.  16:  14,  that  the  glory  of  Moab  shall  be  contemned  with- 
in three  years;  in  Jer.  25:  11.  29:  10  the  period  of  seventy 
years'  exile  is  threatened ;  and  the  like  in  other  passages 
of  the  prophets,  which  need  not  be  recited ;  and  yet  we 
never  once  even  dream  of  putting  a  day  for  a  year  in  a 
single  instance  among  all  these  cases.  Why  ?  Because 
we  have  no  intimation  that  the  passages  are  not  to  be  inter- 
preted in  the  ordinary  way ;  and  nothing  in  the  context 
obliges  us  to  think  of  a  different  mode  of  interpretation. 
Even  so  I  trust  it  may  prove  to  be,  in  cases  yet  to  be  ex- 
amined, and  which  constitute  the  basis  of  our  present  in- 
quiry. 

Nothing  can  be  plainer,  then,  than  that  usage  in  the  pro- 
phecies, as  to  designations  of  time,  does  not  differ  from  or- 
dinary usage  elsewhere.  Tf  there  be  any  cases  where  a 
difference  is  to  be  made  out,  it  must  be  on  entirely  other 
grounds  than  that  of  analogy.  We  have  seen  that  the  an- 
alogy asserted  can  by  no  means  be  established  ;  and  there- 
fore we  cannot  appeal  to  it.     We  come  then  to  examine, 

Secondly,  whether  the  designations  of  time  in  Daniel 
and  in  the  Apocalypse  admit  of  a  satisfactory  solution  on 
the  common  ground  of  grammatico-historical  exegesis. 

We  must  begin  with  the  book  of  Daniel,  because,  as  all 
will  concede,  the  Apocalypse  has  followed  in  many  respects 
closely  in  the  steps  of  this  ancient  prophet.  And,  which  is 
more  important  still,  Daniel  has  twice  brought  into  view  a 
famous  period  equivalent  to  3  J  years=42  months— 1260 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  83 

days.  If  the  use  of  this  number  of  days  is  symbolical  in 
the  book  of  Revelation,  then  it  must  be  conceded  as  pro- 
bable, that  it  is  symbolical  also  in  the  book  of  Daniel ;  and 
so,  vice  versa.  At  least  the  great  mass  of  recent  commen- 
tators in  the  English  world,  who  suppose  that  the  same 
things  are  predicted  in  both  these  books,  cannot  well  avoid 
such  a  conclusion.  It  is  proper,  therefore,  that  we  begin  . 
with  the  1269  days  or  3£  years  in  the  book  of  Daniel. 

We  do  not  find  this  period,  indeed,  specifically  named. 
But  it  is  virtually  designated  in  the  expression  time,  times, 
and  the  dividing  (i.  e.  half)  of  time.  In  chap.  7:  25,  (which 
is  Chaldee),the  main  word  is  ]-;:;  in  12:  7  (Hebrew)  it  is 
I^TTS.  Both  of  these  words  are  from  the  kindred  roots  Ti5> 
and  TJ^ ,  and  mean,  conformably  to  their  etymology,  a  set, 
fixed,  or  appointed  time.  Of  course  this  happily  designates 
the  year,  the  appointed  and  usual  standard  for  the  measure- 
ment of  time.  A  time,  times,  and  half  a  time,  therefore, 
mean  one  year,  two  years,  and  half  a  year =3.J  years=42 
monthsr=1269  days.  This  is  the  same  period  on  which  so 
much  turns  in  Rev.  xi. — xin. ;  and  one  cannot  well  re- 
frain from  believing,  that  the  measure  of  time  in  both  of  ^ 
these  books  is  designed  to  be  the  same. 

What  then  is  the  actual  time  which  is  designated,  in 
those  several  passages  of  Daniel  that  have  been  specifi- 
ed ]  In  order  to  answer  this  question  we  must  first  advert 
to  the  subject-matter  of  each  prophecy,  as  developed  by 
the  context. 

The  first  passage,  in  Dan.  7:  25,  is  so  clear  as  to  leave 
no  room  for  reasonable  doubt.  In  v.  24  the  rise  of  Antio- 
chus  Epiphanes  is  described ;  for  the  fourth  beast  in  7:  7, 
8,  11,  19 — 26,  as  all  must  concede,  is  the  divided  Gre- 
cian dominion  which  succeeded  the  reign  of  Alexander 
the  Great.  From  this  dynasty  springs  Antiochus,  v.  24, 
who  is  most  graphically  described,  in  v.  25,  as  one  who 


84  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

"  shall  speak  great  words  against  the  most  High,  and  shall 
wear  out  (destroy)  the  saints  of  the  most  High,  and  think 
to  change  times  and  laws;  and  they  shall  be  given  into 
his  hands,  until  a  time,  and  times,  and  the  dividing  of  time." 
The  long,  bitter,  and  bloody  persecutions  of  Epiphanes  ; 
his  persevering  efforts  to  abolish  the  Jewish  ritual,  and 
even  to  extinguish  the  religion  which  the  Hebrews  profes- 
sed, and  destroy  all  copies  of  the  holy  Scriptures  which 
were  in  their  hands ;  are  too  well  known  as  historical  facts, 
to  need  any  comment  here,  or  any  specification.  The  only 
question  on  which  any  thing  needs  to  be  said,  is :  How 
does  the  result  here  described,  viz.,  '  the  giving  up  all  these 
things  into  his  hands,'  accord  with  the  time  specified,  pro- 
vided the  designation  of  this  time  be  interpreted  by  the 
common  laws  of  exegesis  1 

The  facts  are  these.  In  the  year  168  before  Christ, 
(usually  designated  by  B.  C),  in  the  month  of  May,  Antio- 
chus  Epiphanes  was  on  his  way  to  attack  Egypt,  and  he 
detached  Apollonius,  one  of  his  military  confidants,  with 
22,000  soldiers,  in  order  to  subdue  and  plunder  Jerusalem. 
The  mission  was  executed  with  entire  success.  A  horri- 
ble slaughter  was  made  of  the  men  at  Jerusalem,  and  a 
large  portion  of  the  women  and  children,  being  made  cap- 
tives, were  sold  and  treated  as  slaves.  The  services  of  the 
temple  were  interrupted,  and  its  joyful  feasts  were  turned 
into  mourning,  1  Mace.  1:  37 — 39.  Soon  after  this  the 
Jews  in  general  were  compelled  to  eat  swine's  flesh,  and  to 
sacrifice  to  idols.  In  December  of  that  same  year,  the 
temple  was  profaned  by  introducing  the  statue  of  Jupiter 
Olympius;  and  on  the  25th  of  that  month,  sacrifices  were 
offered  to  that  idol  on  the  altar  of  Jehovah.  Just  three 
years  after  this  last  event,  viz.,  Decfember  25th,  165  B.  C, 
the  temple  was  expurgated  by  Judas  Maccabaeus,  and  the 
worship  of  Jehovah  restored.     Thus  three  years  and  a  half, 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  85 

or  almost  exactly  this  period,  passed  away,  while  Antiochus 
had  complete  possession  and  control  of  every  thing  in  and 
around  Jerusalem  and  the  temple.  It  may  be  noted,  also, 
that  just  three  years  passed,  from  the  time  when  the  pro- 
fanation of  the  temple  was  carried  to  its  greatest  height, 
viz.,  by  sacrificing  to  the  statue  of  Jupiter  Olympius  upon 
the  altar  of  Jehovah,  down  to  the  time  when  Judas  renew- 
ed the  regular  worship. 

I  mention  this  last  circumstance  in  order  to  account  for 
the  three  years  of  Antiochus'  profanations,  which  are  nam- 
ed as  the  period  of  them  in  Josephus,  Antiq.  XII.  7.  §  6. 
This  period  tallies  exactly  with  the  time  during  which  the 
profanation  was  consummated,  if  we  reckon  down  to  the 
period  when  the  temple  worship  was  restored  by  Judas 
Maccabaeus.  But  in  Prooem.  ad  Bell.  Jud.  §  7,  and  Bell. 
Jud.  I.  1.  §  1,  Josephus  reckons  3 J  years  as  the  period  dur- 
ing which  Antiochus  ravaged  Jerusalem  and  Judea.  There 
is  no  contradiction  in  this  writer,  however,  in  case  we  refer 
each  period  to  the  occurrences  which  it  was  designed  to 
mark.  J 

After  all,  we  are  not  confined  to  his  authority  for  the 
facts  stated.  The  reader  will  find  many  authors  referred 
to,  in  Usher's  Annals,  168  et  seq.  B.  C. ;  in  Froelich, 
Annales  Regum  Syriae,  chap,  on  Antioch.  Epiphanes, 
(an  admirable  work) ;  in  Jahn's  Hebrew  Commonwealth, 
and  in  Prideaux's  Connection,  etc.,  under  the  appropriate 
head  in  each.  To  save  time  and  to  avoid  repetition,  I 
refer  the  reader  to  these  sources  of  information,  and  to 
the  ancient  histories  cited  in  them  ;  most  of  which  may 
be  procured  with  little  trouble,  and  also  are  of  easy  ac- 
cess. And  in  like  manner,  to  save  repetition  would  I 
here  make  a  reference  to  the  same  sources,  as  to  subse- 
quent historical  facts  which  will  be  stated  in  the  course  of  j 
this  investigation  respecting  the  book  of  Daniel. 
8 


86  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

Another  passage  parallel  to  Dan.  7:  25,  which  we  have 
just  examined,  is  Dan.  12:  7,  where  the  same  limitation  of 
time  occurs,  and  in  connection  (for  this  I  cannot  doubt) 
with  the  same  individual,  i.  e.  with  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 
As  in  many  other  cases,  particularly  in  Isaiah  and  Daniel, 
an  unfortunate  division  has  been  made  by  chapters  which 
greatly  obscures  the  sense  of  the  original  Scripture,  so 
here  there  is  an  instance  of  the  like  mistake,  which  is 
much  to  be  regretted.  It  is  quite  plain,  that  Dan.  xi.  and 
xn.  are  closely  and  inseparably  connected,  as  one  contin- 
ued series  of  predictions,  closing  with  some  inquiries  and 
answers,  the  object  of  which  is  to  throw  light  on  those  pre- 
dictions. That  Antiochus  Epiphanes  is  described  in  11: 
21 — 45,  is  past  all  question.  The  graphic  historical  cor- 
rectness and  minuteness  of  the  description  here,  is  even 
such  as  can  be  found  no  where  else  in  the  whole  Bible. 
Porphyry,  in  the  latter  part,  of  the  third  century,  charged 
this  composition  with  being  a  prophecy  post  cventum ; 
and  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  it  is  difficult,  at  the 
present  time,  when  one  compares  other  prophecies,  not  to 
feel  moved  in  some  measure  to  entertain  a  similar  view. 
The  reason  is,  that  in  point  of  minuteness  and  exactness 
of  specification  nothing  elsewhere  in  the  whole  Scripture 
can  be  found  to  compare  with  it ;  so  exactly,  and  at  so 
great  length,  does  it  give  the  history  of  Antiochus. 

That  the  beginning  of  chap.  x».  is  a  mere  continuation 
of  the  angel's  address  to  Daniel,  is  plain  from  a  mere  glance. 
This  address  ends  with  v.  4 ;  and  then  commences  a  col- 
loquy between  two  angels,  designed  to  cast  further  light 
on  what  had  been  said.  One  angel  inquires  of  the  other  : 
"  How  long  shall  it  be  to  the  end  of  these  wonders  ?" 
The  answer,  introduced  by  an  appeal  to  Heaven  for  con- 
firmation of  its  truth,  is,  that  "  it  shall  be  for  a  time,  and 
times,  and  a  half  ;v  and  when  he  shall  have  entirely  com- 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  87 

pleted  the  dashing  in  pieces  [ys.5]  of  the  power  of  the  holy 
people,  all  these  things  shall  be  accomplished."  That  is, 
the  time  when  Antiochus  will  cease  from  persecuting  the 
Jews  and  profaning  the  temple,  or  the  end  of  the  wonder- 
ful things  that  have  been  foretold,  will  be  3|  years  from  the 
commencement  of  his  most  violent  course ;  and  when  he 
shall  have  been  destroyed  and  his  power  over  the  Jews 
shall  have  come  to  an  end,  then  will  have  been  fulfilled  all 
the  things  of  which  the  angel  had  been  giving  information 
to  Daniel.  In  other  words  ;  Dan.  12  :  7  marks  the  ter~ 
minus  ad  quern  of  the  predictions  which  immediately  pre- 
cede it.  And  that  the  dashing  in  pieces,  i.  e.  utterly  de- 
stroying or  suppressing  the  power  of  the  Jews,  is  to  be  re- 
ferred altogether  to  Antiochus,  no  one  who  reads  Dan.  7: 
25,  and  11:  21 — 45,  and  makes  comparison  of  them  with 
the  annunciation  here,  can  well  doubt.  Verses  30 — 35  of 
chap,  xi-  show  fully  what  is  meant  in  12:  7,  by  dashing  in 
pieces  the  power  of  the  holy  people ;  and  the  whole  shows 
that  the  outrages  of  Antiochus,  i.  e.  his  final  and  most  bit- 
ter persecution  of  the  Jews,  with  their  complete  subjuga- 
tion, is  designed  to  be  characterized  here.  And  this,  as 
we  have  already  seen,  lasted  for  a  period  of  3|  years. 

We  see,  then,  an  entire  coincidence  of  manner  and  mat- 
ter between  Dan.  7:  25  and  12:  7.  The  same  time  is 
designated  by  both  in  the  same  way,  and  the  same  person 
and  same  events  are  referred  to  in  both.  Of  course  we  do 
not  need  a  re-investigation  here  of  facts  in  the  history  of 
Antiochus.  The  correspondence  of  prediction  and  history 
is  so  striking,  that  none  can  refuse  to  perceive  it.  The 
only  difficult  question  that  will  arise  here  for  the  interpre- 
ter is :  Whether  12:  1—3  is  to  be  interpreted  so  as  to  re- 
fer it  to  the  troubles  which  Judea  experienced  shortly  be- 
fore the  great  victory  under  Judas  Maccabaeus  which  end- 
ed in  the  restoration  of  liberty  to  the  Hebrews,  and  also 


88 


DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 


to  the  blessings  consequent  on  their  renewed  liberty,  thus 
making  it  parallel  with  Ezek.  37:  1 — 14 ;  or  whether  the 
passage  looks  forward  to  the  Messianic  period  and  final  re- 
surrection. Into  this  question  I  cannot  enter  here ;  nor 
is  it  important  to  the  object  which  I  have  in  view.  The 
passage  in  12 :  7,  undoubtedly  refers  to  the  leading  and 
prominent  part  of  the  prophecy  which  precedes ;  and  this 
plainly  has  respect  to  Antiochus. 

I  am  aware  that  some  have  found  a  vnovoia  in  7:  25, 
and  also  in  12:  7 ;  i.  e.  they  have  interpreted  both  pas- 
sages as  having  reference  to  Antichrist  in  their  secondary 
sense,  or  to  the  beast  which  is  described  in  Rev.  xm.  and 
the  sequel.  But  how  this  can  be  brought  about,  in  the 
present  case,  I  do  not  perceive.  There,  so  far  as  it  respects 
Antiochus,  no  more  than  3  J  years  literally  understood  can 
possibly  be  meant.  The  utter  absurdity  of  supposing  Dan- 
iel to  predict,  that  Antiochus  himself  in  person  should 
persecute  the  Jews  for  1260  years,  needs  no  exposure. 
But  how  3J  literal  years  can  be  meant  in  the  type,  (as  they 
speak),  and  yet  this  same  identical  period  amount  to  1260 
years  in  the  antitype,  i.  e.  Antichrist,  is  a  problem  in  exe- 
gesis, that  has  yet  received  no  solution,  and  surely  admits 
of  no  satisfactory  one.  The  bare  statement  of  the  whole 
matter  is  a  complete  refutation  of  the  exegesis  put  upon 
the  passages  in  question. 

I  have  only  one  more  remark  to  make,  before  I  proceed 
to  the  examination  of  other  passages.  This  is,  that  the 
reader  should  well  note  here  the  general  nature  of  the  limi- 
tation of  time.  It  is  not  specifically  designated  by  years, 
or  months,  or  days,  but  it  is  expressed  in  general  language, 
viz.,  "  time,  times,  and  a  half."  The  very  manner  of  the 
expression  indicates,  of  course,  that  it  was  not  the  design 
of  the  speaker  or  writer  to  be  exact  to  a  day  or  an  hour. 
A  little  more  or  a  little  less  than  3J  years  would,  as  every 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  89 

reasonable  interpreter  must  acknowledge,  accord  perfectly 
well  with  the  general  designation  here,  where  plainly  the 
aim  is  not  statistical  exactness,  but  a  mere  general  charac- 
terizing of  the  period  in  question.  We  shall  see  reason  to 
believe,  in  the  sequel,  that  some  30  days  more  than  exact- 
ly 3|  prophetic  years  were  occupied  by  the  disastrous  oc- 
currences under  the  reign  of  Antiochus ;  for  in  another 
passage,  where  the  exact  period  is  probably  intended  to  be 
marked,  the  number  of  days  is  specifically  given. 

As  this  exact  period  stands  particularly  related  to  the 
general  designation  of  3J  years,  which  we  have  already 
considered,  it  will  facilitate  our  inquiries  to  take  the  exact 
designation  next  into  consideration.  In  Dan.  12:  11  it  is 
said :  "  From  the  time  that  the  daily  sacrifice  shall  be  ta- 
ken away,  and  the  abomination  that  maketh  desolate  set 
up,  there  shall  be  a  thousand  two  hundred  and  ninety  days." 
This  period  exceeds  the  1260  days  by  one  month  or  thir- 
ty days. 

That  the  same  persecuting  power  is  adverted  to  here,  as 
in  Dan.  7:  25.  11:  30 — 35,  and  12:  7,  no  one,  I  appre- 
hend, will  doubt,  who  well  considers  the  language.  Anti- 
ochus "took  away  the  daily  sacrifice,"  as  is  here  declared. 
This  was  in  the  latter  part  of  May,  B.  C.  168.  Profane 
history  does  not  indeed  give  us  the  day ;  but  it  designates 
the  year  and  the  season.  As  we  have  already  seen,  about 
3 J  years  elapsed,  after  the  temple  worship  was  entirely 
broken  up,  before  Judas  Maccabaeus  expurgated  the  tem- 
ple and  restored  its  rites.  This  terminus  ad  quern  is  not 
mentioned  in  the  verse  now  before  us ;  but  still,  it  is  plain- 
ly implied.  The  end  of  the  1290  days  must  of  course  be 
marked  by  some  signal  event,  just  as  the  commencement 
of  them  is  so  marked.  And  as  the  suppression  of  the  tem- 
ple-rites constitutes  the  definitive  mark  of  the  commence- 
ment, so  it  would  seem  plain,  that  the  restoration  of  the 
8* 


90  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

same  rites  must  mark  the  conclusion  of  the  period  which  is 
designated.  The  "  time  of  the  end,"  i.  e.  the  period  at  the 
close  of  which  the  persecutions  of  Antiochus  would  cease, 
is  distinctly  adverted  to  in  7:  25.  11:  30—35,  and  12:  7. 
The  nature  of  the  case,  in  the  verse  before  us,  shows  that 
the  same  period  is  tacitly  referred  to  in  the  words  of 
the  speaker. 

It  is  needless,  therefore,  to  repeat  here  what  has  already 
been  set  before  the  reader,  viz.  the  history  of  the  invasion 
and  profanation  of  the  temple  by  Antiochus.  No  doubt 
remains,  that  his  march  from  Antioch  to  Egypt,  for  hostile 
purposes,  was  in  the  Spring  of  the  year  168  B.  C.  He 
was  delayed  for  some  time  on  this  march,  by  ambassadors 
from  Egypt  who  met  him  in  Coelo-syria.  Very  naturally 
therefore  we  may  conclude,  that  he  arrived  opposite  Jeru- 
salem in  the  latter  part  of  May,  and  that  there  and  then  he 
commissioned  Apollonius  to  rifle  and  profane  the  temple. 
The  exact  time  from  the  period  when  this  was  done,  down 
to  the  time  of  expurgation,  seems  to  have  been,  and  is  de- 
signated as  being,  1290  days. 

Intimately  connected  with  the  passage  last  examined, 
and  standing  in  immediate  succession,  is  another  passage 
in  Dan.  12:  12.  It  runs  thus :  "  Blessed  is  he  that  waiteth, 
and  cometh  to  the  one  thousand  three  hundred  and  thirty- 
five  days."  The  place  which  this  passage  occupies,  shows 
that  the  terminus  a  quo,  or  period  from  which  the  days  de- 
signated are  to  be  reckoned,  is  the  same  as  that  to  which 
reference  is  made  in  the  preceding  verse.  This,  as  we 
have  already  seen,  is  the  period  when  Antiochus,  by  his 
military  agent  Apollonius,  took  possession  of  Jerusalem 
and  put  a  stop  to  the  temple  worship  there.  The  author 
of  the  first  book  of  Maccabees,  who  is  allowed  by  all  to 
deserve  credit  as  a  historian,  after  describing  the  capture 
of  Jerusalem  by  the  agent  of  Antiochus,  (in  the  year  145 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  91 

of  the  era  of  the  Seleucidae  =  168  B.  C),  and  setting  be- 
fore the  reader  the  wide-spread  devastation  which  ensued, 
adds,  respecting  the  invaders :  "  They  shed  innocent  blood 
around  the  sanctuary,  and  denied  the  holy  place;  and  the 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  fled  away ;  .  .  .  .  the  sanctuary 
thereof  was  made  desolate ;  her  feasts  were  turned  into 
mourning,  her  sabbaths  into  a  reproach,  and  her  honour 
into  disgrace;"  1  Mace.  1:  37 — 39.  To  the  period  when 
this  state  of  things  commenced  we  must  look,  in  order  to 
find  the  date  from  which  the  1335  days  are  to  be  reckoned. 
Supposing  then  that  Apollonius  captured  Jerusalem  in  the 
latter  part  of  May,  B.  C.  168,  the  1335  days  would  expire 
about  the  middle  of  Feb.  in  the  year  B.  C.  164.  Did  any 
event  take  place  at  this  period,  which  would  naturally  call 
forth  the  congratulations  of  the  prophet,  as  addressed  in 
the  text  before  us  to  the  Jewish  people  % 

History  enables  us  readily  to  answer  this  question. 
Late  in  the  year  165  B.  C,  or  at  least  very  early  in  the 
year  164  B.  C,  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  learning  that  there 
were  insurrections  and  great  disturbances  in  Armenia  and 
Persia,  hastened  thither  with  a  portion  of  his  armies,  while 
the  other  portion  was  commissioned  against  Palestine.  He 
was  victorious  for  a  time ;  but  being  led  by  cupidity  to 
seek  for  the  treasures  that  were  laid  up  in  the  temple  of 
the  Persian  Diana  at  Elymais,  he  undertook  to  rifle  them. 
The  inhabitants  of  the  place,  however,  rose  en  masse  and 
drove  him  out  from  the  city  ;  after  which  he  fled  to  Ecba- 
tana.  There  he  heard  of  the  total  discomfiture  by  Judas 
Maccabaeus  of  his  troops  in  Palestine,  which  were  led  on 
by  Nicanor  and  Timotheus.  In  the  rage  occasioned  by 
this  disappointment,  he  uttered  the  most  horrid  blasphe- 
mies against  the  God  of  the  Jews,  and  threatened  to  make 
Jerusalem  the  burying-place  of  the  nation.  Immediately 
he  directed  his  course  toward  Judea ;    and  designing  to 


X 


92  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

pass  through  Babylon,  he  made  all  possible  haste  in  his 
journey.  In  the  mean  time  he  had  a  fall  from  his  chariot, 
which  injured  him ;  and  soon  after,  being  seized  with  a 
mortal  sickness  in  his  bowels,  (probably  the  cholera),  he 
died  at  Tabae,  in  the  mountainous  country,  near  the  con- 
fines of  Babylonia  and  Persia.  Report  stated,  even  in  an- 
cient times,  that  Antiochus  was  greatly  distressed  on  his 
death-bed  by  the  sacrileges  which  he  had  committed. 

Thus  perished  the  most  bitter  and  bloody  enemy  which 
ever  rose  up  against  the  Jewish  nation  and  their  worship. 
By  following  the  series  of  events  it  is  easy  to  see,  that  his 
death  took  place  some  time  in  February  of  the  year  164,  B.  C. 
Assuming  that  the  terminus  a  quo  of  the  1335  days  is  the 
same  as  that  of  the  1290  days,  (as  already  remarked  above), 
it  is  plain  that  they  terminate  at  the  same  period,  when  the 
death  of  Antiochus  is  said  to  have  taken  place.  "  It  was 
long  before  the  commencement  of  the  Spring,"  says  Froe- 
lich  in  his  excellent  work  before  quoted,  "  that  Antiochus 
passed  the  Euphrates  and  made  his  attack  upon  Elymais" 
(p.  52)  ;  so  that  no  more  probable  time  can  be  fixed  upon 
for  his  death,  than  at  the  expiration  of  the  1335  days,  i.  e. 
some  time  in  February  of  164  B.  C.  No  wonder  that  the 
angel  pronounced  those  of  the  pious  and  believing  Jews  to 
be  blessed,  who  lived  to  see  such  a  day  of  deliverance. 
The  great  enemy  of  their  nation  and  their  God  had  fallen ; 
Judas  Maccabaeus  had  become  every  where  victorious  ; 
the  sanctuary  was  now  cleansed  of  its  pollution,  pure  wor- 
ship was  restored,  and  the  Hebrews  had  every  prospect  of 
independence  and  of  happiness.  In  fact,  their  own  kings 
reigned  over  them  for  a  long  time  after  this ;  so  that  the 
death  of  Antiochus  was  a  most  important  means  of  secur- 
ing both  civil  and  religious  liberty. 

How  perfectly  natural  such  an  explanation  is,  and  how 
consonant  with  the  spirit  of  the  Hebrews,  on  like  occa- 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  93 

sions,  any  one  may  see  who  will  consult  Isaiah  and  John. 
When  the  king  of  Babylon,  the  great  enemy  of  the  Jews, 
falls,  "the  whole  earth  breaks  forth  into  singing,  the  fir 
trees  and  the  cedars  of  Lebanon  exult  over  him,"  Is.  14:  7, 
8.  When  spiritual  Babylon,  i.  e.  persecuting  Rome,  falls, 
John  calls  upon  "  heaven  and  holy  apostles  and  prophets 
to  rejoice  over  her,  because  God  has  avenged  them  on  her," 
Rev.  19:  "20.  Can  it  be  any  matter' of  wonder  then,  that 
Daniel  congratulates  those  who  should  survive  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  and  calls  them  blessed,  i.  e.  happy,  when  they 
shall  have  lived  to  see  the  day  in  which  liberty  and  peace, 
civil  and  religious,  are  once  more  secure  from  the  assaults  / 
of  such  an  unrelenting  tyrant? 

One,  and  only  one,  more  period  in  the  book  of  Daniel 
claims  our  present  attention.  This  is  in  chap.  vm.  14. 
In  the  vision  seen  by  Daniel,  as  there  related,  one  angel 
inquires  of  another,  '  How  long  the  sanctuary  and  the  host 
are  given  to  be  trodden  under  foot.'  The  answer  is  :  "  To 
two  thousand  three  hundred  days  ;  then  shall  the  sanctua- 
ry be  cleansed." 

The  time  here  designated  has  been  matter  of  controver- 
sy ;  and  consequently  the  subject  needs  some  remarks. 

The  words  in  our  version  :  Unto  two  thousand  and  three 
hundred  days  are,  in  the  original  Hebrew,  expressed  in 
this  manner  :  "  Unto  evening-morning  two  thousand  three 
hundred."  The  doubt  has  fallen  upon  *ina  2"\3>,  evening- 
morning;  for  some  have  understood  it  as  meaning  the 
evening  and  morning  VJSR ,  i.  e.  the  constant  sacrifice  of- 
fered, morning  and  evening,  in  such  a  way  that  each  of 
these  is  to  be  separately  included  in  the  number  2300  ;  so 
that,  in  fact,  only  1150  days  are  in  reality  designated. 
What  increases  the  difficulty  of  deciding  is,  that  exactly 
such  a  phraseology  no  where  else  occurs  in  the  holy  Scrip- 
tures.    Yet  there  are  cases  which  bear  some  analogy  to 


94  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

this,  in  the  Hebrew ;  there  is  a  very  close  analogy  also  to 
this  mode  of  expression  in  the  Greek ;  and  the  nature  of 
the  events  described  in  the  context  may  help  us,  moreover, 
to  form  some  proper  opinion  in  respect  to  the  meaning  of 
the  peculiar  phrase  before  us. 

Nothing  is  more  common  in  Hebrew,  than  the  repeti- 
tion of  the  same  word,  either  in  order  to  denote  intensity 
of  number,  power,  quality,  etc. ;  or  else  to  denote  distri- 
bution. As  specimens  of  the  first  kind,  the  reader  may 
consult  Gen.  14:  10.  Ex.  8:  14.  2  K.  3:  16.  Joel  3:  14 ; 
of  the  second,  Gen.  32:  16.  Num.  17:  2.  Ezek.  24:  6. 
Gen.  7:  9.  But  these  usages  do  not  bear  directly  on  our 
present  difficulty  ;  for  ipin  z-\S  presents  us  with  two  dif- 
ferent words ;  which  moreover  are  without  any  conjunc- 
tion between  them.  On  tljis  latter  circumstance  stress 
has  been  laid  by  some  critics,  who  aver  that  distribution 
is  meant  to  be  designated  by  the  form  of  expression  (with- 
out 1  conjunction),  so  that  in  reality  only  half  the  num- 
ber of  days,  =  1150,  is  meant.  But  on  the  circumstance 
that  the  Vav  conjunction  is  omitted,  it  would  seem  that 
stress  of  this  kind  cannot  well  be  laid.  In  cases  where 
the  repetition  of  the  same  noun  denotes  the  conjunct  idea 
of  all,  each t  every,  e.  g.  n:yj  TOR  each  year  or  every 
year,  sometimes  the  Vav  is  omitted,  and  sometimes  it  is 
inserted;  for  examples  of  omission,  see  Deut.  14:  12.  2 
K.  17:  29.  Ps.  69:  5.  Num.  9:  10 ;  yet  Vav  is  inserted  in 
Ezra  10:  4.  Ps.  87:  5.  Esth.  3:  4.  Deut.  32:  7,  and  many 
other  cases,  without  any  seeming  difference  of  sense.  If 
any  thing  is  to  be  argued  from  the  omission  of  the  copula, 
it  would  seem  to  be,  that  the  two  words  thus  brought  to- 
gether, are  to  be  considered  as  a  kind  of  compound  word. 
So  Gesenius,  Lehrgeb.  p.  519.  Indeed  it  would  be  quite 
natural,  in  case  the  writer  did  design  that  the  two  words 
should  be  separately  considered,  so  that  each  of  them 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  95 

should  be  reckoned  as  a  constituent  part  of  the  2300,  to 
put  a  Vav  between  them.  Thus  where  absolute  severalty 
is  intended  between  nouns  repeated,  the  copula  Vav  is  al- 
ways inserted ;  e.  g.  Deut.  25:  13.  Ps.  12:  3.  1  Chron. 
12:  38.  So  where  the  two  words  npz  and  B*n9  come  to- 
gether, and  each  is  designed  to  be  separately  considered 
or  counted,  the  copula  is  put  between ;  e.  g.  in  1  Chron. 
16:  40.  2  Chron.  2:  3.  31:  3.  Ezra  3:  3.  Jerome  says, 
that,  in  the  case  before  us,  "  vesper e  et  mane  successionem 
diei  noctisque  significat,"  i.  e.  evening  and  morning  signifies 
the  succession  of  day  and  night.  Indeed  the  whole  seems 
plain  when  referred  to  Gen.  i.,  where  the  evening  and  the 
morning  constitute  one  day,  Gen.  1:  5,  8,  13,  19,  23,  31. 
That  the  writer  had  the  usage  in  his  mind  which  these 
last  cited  passages  develope,  seems  plain  from  the  order  in 
which  he  has  placed  the  words,  viz.  by  making  evening  to 
precede  morning,  because  it  began  the  day  among  the  He- 
brews. And  in  the  same  manner  the  Greeks  put  the  two 
parts  of  the  day  together,  in  their  wx&rjiAtQct  (see  2  Cor. 
11:  25),  in  order  fully  and  emphatically  to  designate  one 
complete  day.  That  this  is  the  simple  object  of  the  ex- 
pression now  under  examination,  I  cannot  well  doubt. 
The  principal  support  of  those  who  regard  the  2300  as  de- 
signating the  offerings  of  the  morning  and  the  evening, 
and  so  as  marking  only  1150  whole  days,  is  derived  from 
the  supposition  that  'TOft  is  necessarily  implied  before  the 
expression  "ips  n"i2? .  Yet  in  v.  26  such  an  addition  is 
neither  made,  nor  admissible  before  these  words.  On  the 
whole,  then,  we  must  consider  these  2300  evening-morn- 
ings as  an  expression  of  simple  time  reckoned  in  the  He- 
brew manner.  So  Gesenius,  Rosenmueller,  Havernick, 
and  others. 

The  termination  or  terminus  ad  quern  of  these  is  given 
in  the  closing  phrase :  Then  shall  the  sanctuary  be  cleansed. 


96  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

The  original  Hebrew  here,  unp  p^TXS]  ,  might  afford  room 
for  some  doubt  as  to  the  true  meaning.  The  word  wip , 
rendered  sanctuary,  has  no  article,  (we  should  naturally 
expect  one  if  it  has  this  meaning) ;  and  the  verb  p~£:  ap- 
propriately means  to  justify.  But  this  verb  also  means  to 
put  right,  to  restore,  viz.  that  which  is  in  a  defective  or 
wrong  state;  and  so  it  may  not  unnaturally  be  employed 
here  to  designate  the  restoration  of  the  temple  or  sanctuary 
v  to  its  proper  state  or  condition.  ^  This  was  done  by  Judas 
Maccabaeus,  as  we  have  seen  above,  on  the  25th  of  Dec. 
165  B.  C.  Counting  back  from  this,  as  the  terminus  ad 
quern  of  the  2300  days,  we  come  to  Aug.  5th  of  the  year 
171  B.  C.  What  are  the  events  of  this  year,  then,  which 
correspond  to  that  which  is  said  to  be  done  from  and  after 
the  commencement  of  the  period  in  question  1 

In  vs.  9 — 12  of  the  context,  we  are  informed  of  what 
was  to  be  done.  "  The  little  horn,"  i.  e.  Antiochus  Epi- 
phanes,  "  waxed  great,  and  magnified  itself,"  i.  e.  extended 
itself,  "  to  the  host  of  heaven,  and  cast  down  to  the  ground 
some  of  the  hostyeven  of  the  stars,  and  trampled  upon  them. 
Even  to  the  prince  of  the  host  did  it  magnify  itself,  and  by 
it  was  the  daily  sacrifice  removed,  and  the  dwelling  place 
of  the  sanctuary  was  cast  down."  Here,  it  will  be  per- 
ceived, the  aggressions  of  Antiochus  commence  with  his 
attack  upon  the  priests  of  the  temple,  called  the  host  of 
heaven,  but  specifically  upon  the  high  priest,  who  is  called 
the  prince  of  the  host.  These  are  the  leading  facts  which 
characterize  the  doings  of  Antiochus,  from  and  after  the 
beginning  of  the  2300  days.  The  profanation  of  the  tem- 
ple and  the  taking  away  of  the  daily  sacrifice  follow  on, 
very  naturally,  in  the  sequel.  Does  history  present  us  with 
any  thing  that  happened  in  the  year  171  B.  C,  which  cor- 
responds with  the  representation  in  Daniel  ? 

Menelaus  had,  by  his  artifices  and  by  bribery,  obtained 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  97 

a  nomination  to  be  high-priest  in  the  room  of  his  excellent 
elder  brother,  Onias  III.  Antiochus  Epiphanes  had  pro- 
mised this  office  to  Menelaus,  and  he  expected  a  large  sum 
of  money  for  so  doing.  But  Menelaus  was  tardy  in  the 
payment  of  the  stipulated  sum,  and  was  summoned  before 
Antiochus  in  order  to  answer  for  his  delay.  At  his  de- 
parture he  substituted  Lysimachus  in  his  place  ad  interim  ; 
who,  being  urged  by  Antiochus  and  Menelaus,  rifled  the 
temple  of  its  golden  vessels,  and  sold  them  in  order  to  pay 
the  tribute  exacted.  Menelaus  himself  was  kept  in  his 
office  by  Antiochus,  merely  because  he  had  promised  the 
king  still  larger  sums  of  money  in  the  Way  of  tribute.  In 
the  mean  time,  Onias  III.,  the  elder  brother  and  lawful 
high-priest,  sternly  rebuked  Menelaus  for  his  sacrilege; 
and  soon  after,  at  the  instigation  of  the  same  Menelaus, 
Onias  was  allured  from  his  retreat  at  Daphne,  whither  he 
had  fled  for  safety  after  rebuking  his  brother,  and  was 
murdered  by  Andronicus,  the  vice-gerent  of  Antiochus  who 
had  gone  to  suppress  a  rebellion  in  Cilicia.  The  Jews  at 
Jerusalem,  being  highly  offended  with  the  profanation  of 
the  temple  and  the  sacrilege  of  Lysimachus  who  acted  un- 
der the  orders  of  Antiochus,  rose  in  rebellion  against  Ly- 
simachus and  the  Syrian  forces  who  protected  him,  and 
cut  off  both  this  fraudulent  administrator  himself  and  the 
guards  by  which  he  was  surrounded.  { Well  might  the  pro- 
phet say  then  of  the  Syrian  power  or  little  horn,  that  it 
magnified  itself  against  the  prince  of  the  host. 

Here  commenced  a  series  of  aggressions  unDnthe  priest- 
hood and  temple  and  city  of  the  Jews,  whiM  ■ith  occa- 
sional interruptions,  continued  down  to  the^^Wi  of  Anti- 
ochus, as  before  described.  The  difference,  however,  be- 
tween this  period  of  2300  days  and  the  other  periods,  viz., 
"  time,  times  and  half  a  time"=  1260  days,  the  1290  days, 
9 


y©  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

and  the  1335  days,  is  very  plain  and  striking.  There  were, 
during  the  latter  three  periods  (excepting  the  very  close 
of  the  last),  no  interruptions  of  the  tyrannical  and  over- 
bearing power  of  Antiochus.  But  any  one  who  follows 
closely  the  history  of  the  whole  2300  days,  will  see  that 
frequent  and  long-continued  interruptions  of  active  oppres- 
sion took  place,  during  the  former  half  of  these.  It  is  evi- 
dently the  design  of  the  writer,  in  Dan.  viii.,  to  charac- 
terize the  whole  of  the  violent  interpositions  and  assaults 
of  Antiochus ;  and  so  he  extends  back  his  descriptions  to 
a  period  which  embraces  the  whole  of  his  actual  and  griev- 
ous oppression.  The  tyrannical  procedure,  begun  in  the 
latter  half  of  the  year  171  B.  C.  as  we  have  seen,  was  oc- 
casionally continued,  by  the  murder  of  the  Jewish  ambassa- 
dors at  Tyre  in  170 ;  by  the  subsequent  slaughter  and  cap- 
tivity of  80,000  Hebrews  in  the  same  year,  and  also  by  the 
profanation  and  rifling  of  the  temple.  In  the  year  169, 
Antiochus  was  wholly  occupied  with  his  war  upon  Egypt ; 
but  in  168  B.  C.  Apollonius,  by  order  of  Antiochus,  took 
possession  of  Jerusalem  and  the  temple,  after  which,  for  3£ 
years,  was  an  entire  suspension  of  sacred  rites  and  holy 
feasts. 

Thus  we  find,  upon  due  examination  of  ancient  history, 
that  all  the  times  thus  far  specified  in  the  book  of  Daniel 
may  be  easily  and  naturally  interpreted  according  to  their 
plain  and  obvious  sense.  And  inasmuch  as  the  writer  has 
not  given  us  the  least  intimation  that  they  are  to  be  other- 
wise interjttteu1,  what  can  be  plainer  in  hermeneutics, 
than  thatS  Bbvious  sense  of  the  words  which  designate 
time  is  to  beTollowed  1  If  this  principle  be  not  reasonable 
and  certain,  I  know  not  where  to  find  one  within  the  whole 
circle  of  exegesis  which  is. 

Only  one  period  more  is  named  in  the  book  of  Daniel, 
viz.,  the  seventy  weeks  in  Dan.  9:  24 — 27.     It  would  occu- 


17    \W       OF  THE  '       ^\ 

((UNIVERSITY1] 

IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  99 

py  too  great  a  portion  of  the  present  disquisition,  to  go  into 
a  minute  investigation  of  this  passage.  Indeed  it  would 
require  a  volume  of  considerable  magnitude  even  to  give  a 
history  of  the  ever  varying  and  contradictory  opinions  of 
critics  respecting  this  locus  vezatissimus,  and  perhaps  a  still 
larger  one  to  establish  an  exegesis  which  would  stand. 
But  without  reference  to  this,  it  may  be  truly  said  at  pres- 
ent, that  the  time  specified  here  is  wholly  unlike  to  any 
thing  in  the  Apocalypse,  and  therefore  can  have  no  distinct 
bearing  upon  the  present  discussion.  All  that  is  necessary 
to'  be  said  now  concerning  this  passage,  has  already  been 
said  in  the  preceding  pages ;  and  to  these  I  must  refer  the 
reader. 

Before  we  take  leave,  however,  of  the  book  of  Daniel, 
to  which  appeal  is  so  often  and  confidently  made  by  in- 
terpreters who  make  1260  days  in  the  Apocalypse  to  stand 
for  so  many  years,  we  must  advert  to  the  reference  made 
to  this  book  in  two  of  the  Gospels,  by  which,  it  is  said,  an 
occult  or  secondary  sense  is  attributed  to  some  passages, 
which  have  already  been  explained  above  as  having  refer- 
ence only  to  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 

The  passages  in  question  are  in  Matt.  24:  15  and  Mark 
13:  14.  The  first  runs  thus :  "  When  ye  shall  see  the 
abomination  of  desolation,  which  was  spoken  of  by  Daniel 
the  prophet,  standing  in  the  holy  place,  (let  him  who  read- 
eth  consider !)  then  let  those  who  are  in  Judea  flee  to  the 
mountains,  etc."  The  second  is  of  the  like  tenor  :  "  When 
ye  shall  see  the  abomination  of  desolation,  [spoken  of  by 
Daniel  the  prophet],  standing  where  it  ou^Jhuot,  (let  him 
who  readeth  consider  !)  then  let  those  wno  are  in  Judea 
flee  to  the  mountains,  etc."  In  this  last  passage  from 
Mark,  the  clause  included  in  brackets  is  marked  as  of  a 
suspicious  character  by  Knapp,  and  is  given  up  in  the 
main  by  most  recent  critics.     Even  Hengstenberg,  in  his 


100  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

efforts  to  show  that  the  prophecy  of  Daniel  is  applied  in  a 
direct  way,  by  the  Saviour,  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
by  the  Romans,  still  gives  up  the  suspected  clause  in  Mark ; 
pp.  258,  267,  of  his  Aechtheit  des  Daniel.  But  with  me 
this  makes  no  important  difference.  All  the  copies  of  Mat- 
thew exhibit  the  reading  in  question  ;  and  the  testimony  of 
one  evangelist  should  be  enough  for  any  one  who  believes 
in  the  divine  inspiration  of  the  Gospels. 

The  simple  question  before  us  is  :  Whether  the  Saviour 
has  applied  the  prediction  in  Daniel  respecting  the  f}fid 
Dfcjfca  (abomination  of  desolation)  to  the  Romans,  and  thus 
shown  that  we  are  not  to  apply  it,  or  at  least  not  to  apply 
it  exclusively,  to  Antiochus  Epiphanes  1 

There  are  three  passages  in  Daniel,  where  the  phraseol- 
ogy in  question,  or  nearly  the  same,  is  employed.  These 
are  Dan.  11:  31.  12:  11,  and  9:  27.  Hengstenberg  himself 
gives  up  the  two  former,  as  being  applicable,  and  as  al- 
ways having  been  applied  in  ancient  times,  to  Antiochus. 
Indeed  the  case  is  so  plain,  that  no  one  can  safely  venture 
on '  denying  it.  He  strives  however  with  much  earnest- 
ness, to  show  that  the  phrase  in  Dan.  9:  27  is  that  which 
the  Saviour  quotes  and  applies  to  the  Romans.  But  of 
this  many  doubts  might  be  raised.  The  form  of  the  He- 
brew here  serves  of  itself  to  excite  some  doubt.  It  runs 
thus:  Dtitoto  tFJtoplzJ  PJ35D  $9 ,  which  in  the  Septuagint  is 
rendered  (and  also  by  Theodotion) :  3Enl  x6  Uq6v  fidilvyfia 
twc  6(jr)fi(ocr6ojv,  evidently  showing  a  different  reading  of 
the  ancient  Hebrew  text,  or  else  a  palpable  mistake  of 
the  translator.  It  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  Matthew 
and  Mark,  or  that  the  Saviour,  borrowed  the  simple  ex- 
pression fidsXvyfia  rijg  iqi^tttasag  from  such  an  almost  sense- 
less version  as  that  of  the  Seventy  as  given  above.  In  the 
Hebrew  just  quoted,  CT*2t5J|JtJ  is  not  in  regimen  or  the  con- 
struct state ;  nor  does  'D'DWz  assume  the  article,  which,  as 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES. 


101 


being  specific,  it  would  naturally  do  here  if  it  were  in  the 
Genitive.  Every  thing  in  the  form,  manner,  and  (as  I 
must  believe)  object  of  the  Hebrew  phrase  here,  forbids  us 
to  suppose  that  Matt.  24:  15  and  Mark  13:  14  are  built  up- 
on this.  Indeed  if  they  are,  the  original  application  of  Dan. 
9:  27  to  the  Romans  might  still  be  called  in  question.  The 
contents  of  the  verse  seem  almost  irresistibly  to  remind  us 
of  Antiochus,  as  described  in  Dan.  7:  25.  8:  9 — 12.  11: 
31,  45.  12:  11.  I  must  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  @di- 
kvyfia  iQwuaEtaQ  in  Matthew  and  Mark  refers  to  Dan.  11: 
31  or  12:  11 ;  in  either  of  which  cases  it  must  originally 
have  designated  Antiochus. 

Thus  much  I  feel  compelled  to  acknowledge,  on  the 
simple  grounds  of  criticism;  although  the  admission  ap- 
parently makes  against  the  cause  which  I  am  now  advo- 
cating ;  or  at  least  it  seems  to  concede  a  vnovoia  in  the  pas- 
sages last  referred  to.     Does  it  necessarily  imply  one  ? 

The  genera]  principle  of  exegesis  on  such  ground  has 
been  discussed  above,  and  need  not  be  here  renewed.  It  is 
enough  for  the  present  to  say,  that  the  application  of  the 
phraseology  in  question  (so  far  as  it  belongs  to  the  book  of 
Daniel)  to  the  wasting  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans,  no 
more  proves  that  such  was  the  original  object  of  Daniel's 
words,  than  the  application  of  Hos.  11:  1  to  the  exile  of 
the  child  Jesus  in  Egypt,  by  Matthew  in  chap.  n.  15,  proves 
that  Hosea  11:  1  was  originally  a. prediction  respecting  the 
exile  of  Jesus.  It  is  not  in  fact  a  prediction  at  all,  in 
any  sense,  but  simply  a  historical  declaration.  But  then, 
how  natural  and  even  appropriate  for  Matthew  to  say,  that 
the  words  of  Hosea :  "  I  have  called  my  Son  out  of  Egypt," 
found  a  nXrigoxjiQ  in  the  sojourn  of  God's  greater  Son  there, 
and  in  his  recal  from  that  country  !  A  certain  event  happen- 
ed in  ancient  times,  viz.,  the  calling  of  God's  Son  (collec- 
tively taken  for  the  Israelites)  out  of  Egyptian  exile ;  a 
9* 


V 


102  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

like  event  had  recently  taken  place,  when  the  Son  of  God 
in  a  higher  and  nobler  sense  was  called  out  of  exile  in  the 
same  country.  Was  there  not  now  a  nXqQaxng  of  the  an- 
cient declaration  of  the  prophet,  such  as  would  compel 
almost  every  mind  to  feel  the  congruity  of  adapting  that  de- 
claration to  the  recent  events  7 

So  is  it,  surely,  with  the  case  of  Rachel  weeping  for  her 
children,  as  described  in  Jer.  31:  15,  and  applied  by  the 
prophet  to  the  exile  of  the  Jews ;  while  Matthew  (2:  17, 
18)  applies  it  to  the  massacre  by  Herod  of  the  infants  who 
were  in  the  town  of  Bethlehem. 

Perhaps  even  more  than  half  of  ihefulfilments  (nXqQwaeig), 
spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament,  are  of  the  like  character. 
Why  not  apply  this  simple  and  well  known  principle,  this 
obvious  usage  of  the  New  Testament  writers,  to  the  passage 
under  discussion,  in  which  reference  is  made  to  the  book  of 
Daniel !  I  can  see  no  good  reason  why  they  may  not  be 
so  applied.  But  if  this  be  allowed,  the  amount  of  the  ref- 
erence in  the  Gospels  to  Daniel  is,  that  he  is  appealed  to 
as  having  described  a  waster  of  the  temple  and  city  of  Je- 
rusalem in  ancient  times,  of  the  like  character  and  inten- 
tion as  the  waster  who  finally  destroyed  Jerusalem.  What 
then  took  place  had  a  nl^gomtg  now,  i.  e.  the  like  thing 
happened  in  a  still  higher  sense.  And  why  may  we  not 
interpret  these  passages  in  the  same  way  as  we  feel  com- 
pelled to  interpret  so  many  others  7  In  fact  it  seems  to  me, 
that  the  Saviour,  or  the  Evangelist,  (it  is  difficult  to  say  which 
speaks  in  the  passage  to  be  cited,  and  matters  not  for  our 
purpose),  appears  to  have  warned  the  reader  by  the  paren- 
thetic 6  avayivfoaxwv  vodna  {let  him  icho  readeth  consider), 
that  the  original  words  of  the  prophet  were  not  intended  to 
have  such  an  application  as  is  made  of  them  by  the  inter- 
preters in  question,  but  only  that  they  described  events  of 
altogether  a  similar  nature.     As  of  old,  when  Antiochus  in- 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  103 

vaded  Jerusalem  and  the  temple,  the  pious  Jews  fled  into 
the  wilderness,  so  now,  when  the  Roman  power  invades  Ju- 
dea  with  purposes  of  destruction,  Christians  should  flee  to 
the  mountains,  etc. 

Viewed  in  this  light,  (and  I  am  persuaded  this  is  the 
light  in  which  the  passages  before  us  ought  to  be  viewed), 
these  declarations  of  Jesus  do  not  establish  the  position, 
that  we  ought  not  to  apply  the  passages  in  Daniel  accord- 
ing to  the  plain  historical  manner  in  which  I  have  applied 
them.  In  vain  do  we  seek  in  the  book  of  Daniel,  then, 
any  justification  for  interpreting  1260  days  as  meaning 
1260  years ;  or  any  justification  for  interpreting  any  of 
the  times  specified  there  in  a  manner  contrary  to,  or  differ- 
ent from,  their  natural  and  obvious  meaning. 


Come  we  then,  at  last,  to  the  Apocalypse  itself. 
Here  is  perhaps  more  difficulty  than  in  the  interpretation 
of  Daniel^;  but  still  we  must  travel  in  the  same  road  as 
before,  and  see  if  we  can  find  solutions  which  are  satisfac- 
tory. This  I  apprehend  may  be  done  if  we  continue  to 
regard  only  the  simple  principles  of  interpretation. 

But  before  we  undertake  to  do  this,  I  must  beg  the  read- 
er's attention  to  a  few  simple  yet  very  important  facts,  in 
regard  to  the  tenor  and  object  of  the  Apocalypse.  I  can- 
not here  discuss  the  topics  which  I  am  now  about  to  sug- 
gest at  length,  nor  attempt  the  vindication  of  my  views  by 
appeal  to  all  the  minute  particulars  which  the  book  of  Rev- 
elation exhibits,  and  which  might  serve  to  confirm  them. 
gThis  must  be  reserved  for  another  work  of  a  more  copious 
nature  than  the  present,  and  where  a  more  ample  discus- 
sion than  the  present  would  naturally  find  an  appropriate 


104  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

place.  I  must,  however,  beg  the  reader's  earnest  attention 
to  the  following  suggestions,  and  entreat  him  at  least  to  ex- 
amine and  well  consider  them,  before  he  decides  against 
the  views  that  may  be  proffered  in  the  sequel. 

(1)  It  lies  upon  the  face  of  the  Apocalypse,  from  begin- 
ning to  end,  that  it  was  written  in  the  midst  of  a  bitter  and 
bloody  persecution  of  the  church.  The  writer  himself  is  in 
exile  "  on  account  of  the  word  of  God  and  the  testimony 
of  Jesus  ;"  and  the  persons  whom  he  addresses  are  exposed 
or  speedily  to  be  exposed,  to  all  the  hardships,  perils,  and 
temptations,  which  result  from  persecution.  Of  course 
his  object  is  to  guard,  to  guide,  to  fortify,  and  to  console 
Christians  in  such  circumstances  ;  and  never  did  a  writer 
cleave  more  fully  to  his  purpose,  or  execute  it  more  effec- 
tually. The  glorious  rewards  of  those  who  persevere  ;  the 
speedy  and  condign  punishment  of  persecutors ;  the  ulti- 
mate and  certain  triumph  of  the  church  over  all  her  ene- 
mies ;  the  universal  spread  of  Christianity  over  the  earth ; 
and  the  eternal  happiness  of  all  the  faithful  in  the  kingdom 
of  God  above ;  are  unfolded  on  the  pages  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse, and  stand  there  deeply  engraven  in  characters  of 
light.     He  who  runneth,  may  read. 

It  follows  now,  from  the  plain  and  evident  intention  and 
object  of  the  writer,  that  the  book  before  us  must  consist 
of  matter  appropriate  to  its  design.  If  we  deny  or  over- 
look this,  we  must  of  course  involve  the  writer  in  the  charge 
of  having  failed  to  execute  his  purpose,  or  of  having  execu- 
ted it  in  a  feeble  or  unsatisfactory  manner. 

Should  we  suppose,  then,  as  many  have  done,  that  the 
Apocalypse  is  a  kind  of  Syllabus  of  civil  history,  or  of  civil 
and  ecclesiastical  history,  disclosing  the  leading  events 
that  are  to  take  place  down  to  the  end  of  time  among  na- 
tions and  kingdoms,  nothing  can  be  more  plain,  than  that 
we  should  assign  to  it  an  object  totally  foreign  to  what  was 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  105 

appropriate  to  the  time  and  circumstances  of  both  writer 
and  reader.  I  am  aware  that  the  very  first  verse  of  the 
Revelation  proclaims  the  design  of  the  book  to  be,  "  to 
show  to  the  servants  of  Christ  the  things  that  must  come 
to  pass."  But  what  things  ?  The  context  and  sequel  of  v 
the  book  must  answer  this  question.  The  Apocalypse  is 
no  dissertation  de  Omni  Scibili.  It  has  an  appropriate  and 
limited  object ;  and  this  is,  to  show  the  servants  of  God 
the  certain  triumph  of  the  cause  in  which  they  were  en- 
gaged, and  to  hold  out  the  glorious  reward  consequent  up-  ' 
on  being  faithful  unto  death. 

That  I  am  correct  in  this  position,  I  think  no  one  will 
seriously  call  in  question,  who  reads  the  book  through, 
with  his  mind  unembarrassed  by  any  preconceived  scheme 
of  interpretation.  And  if  I  am  correct,  how  is  it  possible 
to  suppose,  that  the  civil  history  of  states  and  kingdoms, 
or  of  the  various  heresies  which  were  to  arise  out  of  the 
church  many  centuries  after  the  writer  and  all  his  readers 
were  dead,  are  not  only  detailed  in  the  book  before  us,  but 
that  the  greater  part  of  the  book  is  occupied  by  this  detail  ? 
Yet  on  such  a  supposition  many  a  commentator  upon  the 
Revelation  has  built  his  system. 

But  I  have  not  yet  done  with  the  declaration  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  book,  that  the  object  of  the  Revelation 
is  "  to  show  the  servants  of  Christ  what  must  come  to 
pass."  Many,  I  am  aware,  have  stopped  short  with  this 
single  consideration,  and  endeavored  to  justify  their  sylla- 
bus of  civil  and  ecclesiastical  history  thereby.  But  there 
is  another  most  important  circumstance  attending  this  de- 
claration, which  needs  to  be  noted.     This  is, 

(2)  That  the  things  to  come  to  pass  are  those,  which  are 

SHORTLY  TO  COME  TO  PASS. 

I  cannot  stop  here  to  examine  how  often  the  repeated 
declarations  of  this  book  to  this  purpose  have  been  over- 


106  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

looked,  or  the  force  of  them  evaded  by  ingenious  conjec- 
ture. Most  expositors  have  indeed  made  too  little  of  these 
direct  and  positive  declarations ;  but  a  few,  such  as  Wet- 
stein,  Herder,  and  some  others,  have  made  too  much. 
There  is  a  medium ;  nor  is  it  difficult,  as  I  apprehend  the 
matter,  to  discover  what  it  is.  The  great  body  of  the 
work  appears  to  me,  beyond  any  well-grounded  doubt,  to 
have  reference  to  events  speedily  to  take  place,  or  at  least 
speedily  to  commence  taking  place ;  for  the  second  catas- 
trophe is  a  prolonged  one,  as  may  be  seen  in  Rev.  xvi. — xix. 
A  very  small  portion  of  the  work,  e.  g.  chap.  xx.  xxi., 
has  respect  most  plainly  to  the  distant  future.  This  is 
what  the  nature  of  the  case  would  seem  to  require,  and 
this  too  is  what  the  nature  of  the  expressions  under  con- 
sideration admits.  More  or  less  than  this  would  not  be 
compatible  with  both  of  these. 

We  must  here  turn  our  special  attention,  for  a  few  mo- 
ments, to  the  further  development  of  the  declarations  in 
question.  In  Rev.  1:  1,  the  writer  says,  that  God  gave  to 
Christ  the  Revelation,  "  in  order  to  show  his  servants  what 
should  take  place  iv  rdxn,  speedily,  quickly."  In  1:  3,  the 
author  solemnly  declares,  that  what  is  written  in  this  book 
is  of  speedy  accomplishment:  cO  xuigog  iyyvg,  the  time  is 
near,  i.  e.  the  time  when  what  is  revealed  will  be  accom- 
plished. Thus  much  in  the  prologue  to  the  book.  The 
epilogue  repeats  three  several  times  the  equivalent  decla- 
ration :  Behold  I  come  quickly  !  22:  7,  12,  20.  The  com- 
ing of  Christ  is  the  main  subject  of  the  book  ;  so  that  the 
declaration  here  is,  that  what  the  book  contains  will  speed- 
ily be  accomplished. 

That  such  must  be  the  meaning,  is  evident  by  appeal  to 
similar  declarations  in  Rev.  2:  16.  3:  11,  and  11:  14.  No 
one  can  doubt,  that  what  is  said  is  what  is  meant,  in  these 
last  cases.     As  little  reasonable  doubt  can  there  be,  if 


V> 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  107 

philology  is  to  be  trusted,  in  the  cases  just  cited  from  the 
prologue  and  epilogue  of  the  book. 

What  tolerable  meaning  now  can  be  given,  and  defend- 
ed on  exegetical  grounds,  to  the  declarations  in  question, 
if  we  suppose  that  the  main  portion  of  the  book  relates  to 
events  some  thousand  and  more  of  years  then  future  ?  And 
if  every  writer  is  to  be  permitted  the  liberty  of  explaining 
his  own  purpose,  why  should  we  refuse  to  John  the  liberty 
that  we  concede  to  all  others  ? 

But  still,  one  more  consideration  is  to  be  taken  into 
view,  to  which  I  have  already  alluded.  This  is,  that  a 
very  small  portion  of  the  book,  (strictly  considered  only 
chap,  xx.,  for  the  sequel  is  mere  expansion  of  a  part  of 
this),  has  respect  to  the  distant  future.  So  plain  is  this 
distant  future  here  brought  into  view  that  no  explanation 
or  defence  of  this  position  is  needed.  Of  course  some 
modification  of  the  expressions,  coming  to  pass  quickly 
and  coming  quickly,  is  necessary.  But  here  is  no  difficul- 
ty. The  great  mass  of  the  book  respects  events  in  reality 
to  be  completed  speedily,  or  speedily  to  commence  being 
completed.  On  these  the  writer  dwells  at  length,  and 
spreads  them  out  from  chap.  6:  1  to  chap.  19:  21.  Of  the 
distant  future  he  gives  nothing  more  than  a  few  rapid 
glances.  In  describing  the  new  heavens  and  the  new  earth 
he  is  indeed  more  copious ;  but  this  is  a  delightful  theme, 
and  is  not  properly  prediction,  but  description  which  is 
intended  for  the  very  purpose  of  creating  emotion  in  the  4^ 
breast  of  his  readers. 

Thus  considered,  all  harmonizes.  We  admit  the  full 
force  of  the  declarations,  that  a  speedy  accomplishment  of 
what  is  said,  i.  e.  of  the  great  portion  of  what  is  said,  will 
take  place.  We  interpret  the  words  of  the  writer  in  a 
straight-forward  manner,  without  resort  to  any  subterfuges, 
without  at  all  explaining  away  the  writer's  words.     We 


108  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

extend  the  briefness  of  time  for  accomplishment,  to  every 
thing  in  the  book  which  in  its  nature  is  susceptible  of  such 
an  application.  More  cannot  reasonably  be  asked ;  less 
cannot  reasonably  be  assumed;  for  every  writer  should  be 
left,  so  far  as  may  be,  to  explain  himself. 

(3)  It  would  seem  to  follow  from  the  positions  thus  laid 
down,  that  we  are  at  liberty,  or  rather  that  we  are  obliged, 
if  possible,  to  seek  for  a  fulfilment  of  the  predictions  in  the 
main  body  of  the  Apocalypse,  within  a  time  which  is  not 
far  distant  from  the  period  when  the  book  was  written.  If 
such  a  fulfilment  can  be  found  as  coincides  with  the  pe- 
riods named  in  the  Apocalypse,  then  what  good  reason 
can  be  offered  why  we  should  reject  it  1  Or  rather  :  Why 
are  we  not  exegetically  obliged  to  admit  it  ? 

That  there  are  some  designations  of  time  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse, which  are  to  be  symbolically  taken,  i.  e.  which, 
though  definitely  expressed,  are  not  meant  to  be  urged  by 
the  reader  in  the  literal  shape,  all,  I  suppose,  will  concede. 
For  example ;  in  Rev.  2:  10  it  is  said  to  the  church  at 
Smyrna,  that  "the  devil  would  cast  some  of  them  into  pri- 
son, that  they  might  be  tried  and  afflicted  for  ten  days." 
That  a  short  period  merely,  but  not  a  strictly  definite  one, 
is  here  meant,  will  be  generally  admitted.  If  the  reader 
wishes  to  see  how  the  scriptural  writers  can  employ  the 
number  ten  in  such  a  kind  of  way,  he  may  compare  1  Sam. 
25:  38.  Neh.  5:  18.  Jer.  42:  7.  Dan.  1:  12, 14.  Acts  25: 
6,  al. ;  where  he  may  find  examples  to  this  purpose.  The 
mind  naturally  prefers  a  definite  time,  as  being  more  em- 
phatic ;  hence  ten  days  may  well  be  taken  for  a  short,  but 
really  indefinite,  period.  We  may  compare  with  such  a 
usage  the  Latin  sex  ccnties  (six  hundred  times),  which,  in 
the  like  way,  means  a  large  and  indefinite  number  of  times. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  mention,  that  hour  of  trial, 
in  Rev.  3:  10,  means  season  of  trial;  and  such  is  the  mean- 


V 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  109 

ing  of  the  word  hour  oftentimes  in  the  Old  Testament  and 
in  the  New. 

Once  more;  in  Rev.  9:  10  it  is  said,  that  the  army  of 
locusts  from -the  abyss,  commissioned  to  inflict  wounds  up- 
on men  like  those  of  scorpions,  "should  have  power  to  in- 
jure men  Jive  months.'1  Now  as  the  natural  locust  makes 
his  appearance  about  the  commencement  of  May,  and  de- 
parts about  the  close  of  September,  it  would  seem  quite 
plain  that  the  writer  has  had  regard  to  this,  in  the  limita- 
tion of  the  period  during  which  the  locusts  from  the  abyss 
are  to  torment  men.  The  design  plainly  seems  to  be,  to 
indicate  that  they  shall  torment  them  only  for  a  short  pe- 
riod, like  to  that  in  which  the  natural  locusts  consume  the 
productions  of  the  earth.  Of  course,  a  period  strictly  defi- 
nite does  not  appear  to  be  here  designated ;  for  plainly 
such  cannot  have  been  the  writer's  design.  We  may  there- 
fore reckon  this  among  those  cases,  in  which  the  use  of 
numbers  is  to  be  understood  in  a  tropical  way.  All  at- 
tempts to  show  that  a  day  for  a  year  is  meant  here,  would 
be  nugatory ;  for  to  what  can  150  years  in  this  case  be  ap- 
plied ?  Equally  nugatory  is  it  to  attempt  the  making  out 
of  any  valid  proof,  that  the  exact  literal  Jive  months  is  here 
to  be  insisted  on.  Any  series  of  historical  facts,  which 
would  accord  well  with  the  account  of  the  ravages  of  the 
locusts  as  here  described,  never  has  been,  and  in  my  ap- 
prehension never  can  be,  satisfactorily  made  out.  The 
whole  is  poetic  tropical  description,  intended  to  show  the 
aggravated  punishment  which  the  persecutors  of  Chris- 
tianity will  receive. 

But  the  designations  of  time  in  the  Apocalypse,  about 
which  there  is  any  important  controversy,  may  be  found 
in  chap.  xi. — xin.,  and  in  chap.  xx.  The  latter,  however, 
stands  by  itself;  our  principal  concern  is  with  the  former. 

Tn  Rev.  11:  2,  it  is  predicted  that  "  the  Gentiles  shall 
10 


110  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

V  tread  under  foot  the  holy  city,  forty  and  two  months" 
which  are  equal  to  3J  years  or  1260  days.  That  Jerusa- 
lem is  here  meant,  the  very  epithet  given  to  it  (holy  city) 
shows ;  or  if  this  should  be  questioned,  v.  8th  settles  the 
controversy,  for  it  names  the  city  as  the  place  where  our 
Lord  was  crucified.  Besides ;  the  temple  of  God  that  was 
to  be  measured  (11:  1),  was  there;  and  in  chap,  vn.,  the 
144,000  who  are  to  be  sealed,  and  thus  exempted  from  im- 
pending evils,  are  all  selected  from  the  twelve  tribes  of  Is- 
rael. Declarations  such  as  these  must  identify  the  objects 
of  chastisement  in  view  by  the  writer,  in  all  which  he  has 
disclosed  in  chap.  v. — xi.,  viz.  the  destruction  of  the  Jew- 
ish persecuting  power.  Jerusalem,  as  being  the  metropo- 
lis, is,  as  often  in  the  Old  Testament,  made  the  symbol  or 
representative  of  the  whole  country  or  nation.  The  reader 
needs  only  to  be  reminded,  how  often  Zion  and  Jeru- 
salem stand,  in  prophetic  language,  as  the  representatives 
of  the  Jewish  government,  polity,  land,  and  nation,  in  or- 
der to  accede  to  the  position,  that  the  capitals  in  the 
Apocalypse  are  to  be  considered  as  the  symbols  of  the  coun- 
try and  of  the  government  to  which  they  belong. 

When  John  therefore  predicts,  in  Rev.  11:  2,  that  "the 
holy  city  shall  be  trodden  under  foot  42  months,"  this  of 
course  involves  the  idea,  that  the  country  of  which  the 
holy  city  is  the  capital,  is  also  trodden  under  foot.  To 
make  their  way  to  the  capital,  a  foreign  enemy,  coming  (as 
the  Romans  did)  from  the  north,  must  have  overrun  a 
great  portion  of  Palestine  antecedently  to  the  capture  of 
Jerusalem.  The  prediction  of  course  includes  both,  inas- 
much as  the  holy  city  is  made  the  representative  of  the 
country  at  large. 

I  understand  this  prediction  as  being  in  substance  the 
same  as  that  in  Matt,  xxiv.,  and  in  the  parallel  passages  of 
the  other  Evangelists.     The  consummation  is  related  in 


V 


/-' 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  Ill 

Rev.  xi.  of  the  event  for  which  preparation  had  been  mak- 
ing ;  which  preparation  the  Apocalyptist  exhibits  in  chap. 
v. — x.  Let  us  now  resort  to  history,  and  see  what  the  re- 
sult of  inquiry  respecting  facts  will  be. 

Previous  to  the  final  outbreak  of  a  general  war  between 
the  Jews  and  Romans,  there  had  been  often  repeated  tu- 
mults and  partial  insurrections,  and  a  state  of  great  dis- 
quiet and  insecurity  for  some  time,  but  especially  were  all 
these  things  greatly  augmented  in  A.  D.  66;  all  of  which 
corresponds  well  with  the  descriptions  in  the  Evangelists 
and  in  Rev.  v. — x.  At  length,  in  Oct.  of  A.  D.  66,  Ces- 
tius,  the  Roman  Prefect  of  Syria,  moved  by  the  tumults  of 
the  Jews,  laid  siege  to  Jerusalem,  and  captured  the  lower 
part  of  the  city  ;  but  after  a  few  days  he  abandoned  this 
enterprise  and  retreated.  The  inquiet  state  of  things  in 
Palestine  being  made  known  to  Nero  at  Rome,  during  the 
winter  that  followed,  he  sent  Vespasian  and  Titus  his  son, 
to  subdue  and  punish  the  Jews.  In  the  spring  of  the  fol- 
lowing year  (A.  D.  67),  Vespasian  having  collected  his 
troops,  made  a  descent,  early  in  the  month  of  May,  upon 
Galilee.  The  attack  upon  Palestine  having  thus  com- 
menced, it  was  continued  thenceforth  with  unabated  fury, 
until  the  city  of  Jerusalem  and  temple  were  taken  and  ut- 
terly destroyed,  early  in  Aug.  A.  D.  70.  And  although 
the  war  was  still  carried  on,  after  this,  against  several 
small  fortresses  here  and  there,  yet  it  was  considered  as 
substantially  at  an  end,  by  the  capture  of  Jerusalem;  and 
such  was  indeed  the  fact,  for  Titus  and  the  main  part  of  his 
army  soon  left  the  country. 

Here  then  are  the  42  months  in  question,  with  the  va-  V^ 
nations  at  most  of  only  a  few  days,  or  possibly  weeks. 
The  time  when  the  imperial  power  of  Rome,  i.  e.  Nero, 
made  a  formal  declaration  of  war  against  Judea,  and  com-     tf 
missioned  Vespasian  and  his  son  to  execute  his  hostile  de- 


112 


DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 


termination,  may  be  fairly  taken  as  the  terminus  a  quo  of 
the  Jewish  war  ;  for  all  that  had  preceded  was  but  tempo- 
rary and  local  insurrection  on  the  part  of  the  Jews,  and 
was  resisted  only  by  the  subordinate  authority  and  power 
of  the  Prefect  of  the  province.  This  commission  appears 
to  have  been  given  in  the  latter  part  of  the  winter  of  A.  D. 
67  ;  for  we  find  that  Vespasian,  who  repaired  to  Antioch 
after  receiving  it,  in  order  to  collect  his  troops,  was  not 
ready  to  march  upon  Judea  until  some  time  in  the  month 
of  May  of  the  same  year.  If  we  suppose  now  that  the  for- 
mer part  of  February  was  the  month  when  war  was  de- 
clared, or  the  commission  made  out,  we  shall  find  that  three 
years  and  six  months  elapsed,  between  this  period  and  the 
taking  of  Jerusalem  and  destroying  it,  on  the  10th  of 
Aug.  A.  D.  70. 

During  this  period,  the  disciples  of  Christ,  giving  heed 
to  the  warning  of  their  divine  Master  (Matt.  24:  16 — 22), 
fled  from  Palestine,  and  retreated  to  the  wilderness-coun- 
try east  of  the  Jordan  ;  thus  fulfilling,  as  we  shall  have  oc- 
casion to  remark  in  the  sequel,  the  period  of  flight  for  safe- 
ty to  the  wilderness,  which  is  attributed  to  the  woman  (the 
church),  in  Rev.  12:  6,  14. 

Another  period  mentioned  in  Rev.  11:  3  is  of  the  same 
extent  as  that  which  has  already  been  examined,  and  con- 
temporaneous with  it.  It  was  foretold  by  the  Saviour,  in 
Matt.  24:  9 — 13,  that,  during  the  aggressive  war  made 
upon  Judea,  the  spirit  of  persecution  against  Christians 
would  rage  in  an  unwonted  manner,  and  many  of  his  dis- 
ciples perish.  Such  was  indeed  the  case.  The  fury  of 
the  Zealot-party  was  without  bounds,  when  the  rage  of 
war  had  enkindled  all  their  violent  passions.  Although 
the  great  mass  of  Christians  fled  from  before  them  and  the 
Romans,  so  as  to  save  their  lives,  yet  all  did  not  and  could 
not  retreat.     Many  remained  in  their  country,  faithful  con- 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  113 

fessors  of  Christianity  even  unto  death.  Against  these 
witnesses  (see  Rev.  11:  3)  or  martyrs,  the  great  body  of  the 
Jews  are  represented  as  arraying  themselves,  in  Rev.  11: 
3 — 12,  and  as  persecuting  them  unto  death.  For  a  while, 
the  miraculous  powers  of  some  of  the  Christian  teachers 
overawed  their  malignant  enemies,  Rev.  11:  5,  6.  But  at 
last  the  faithful  witnesses  were  destroyed.  The  period  of 
consummating  this  destruction  is  limited,  however,  in  the 
same  manner  as  that  of  the  subjugation  of  Palestine.  Dur- 
ing all  the  Romish  invasion  the  spirit  of  hostility  was  ac- 
tive; and  yet  persecution  unto  death  did  not  root  out 
Christianity.  It  continued  rising,  it  triumphed ;  for  "  the 
blood  of  martyrs  was  the  seed  of  the  church." 

The  destruction  of  Jerusalem  put  an  end  of  course  to  ^ 
the  Jewish  persecuting  power  in  Judea.  Consequently 
the  period  in  which  Christianity  becomes  triumphant  over 
persecution  there,  is  contemporaneous  with  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem.  Nothing  can  be  more  clear,  than  that  the 
period  of  the  two  witnesses  is  the  same  as  that  of  "  treading 
the  holy  city  under  foot  by  the  Gentiles,"  Rev.  11:  2,  3. 
Two  witnesses,  and  but  two,  are  specified,  as  we  may 
very  naturally  suppose,  because  "  by  the  mouth  of  two  or 
three  witnesses  every  word  is  established." 

The  sum  of  Rev.  xi.  is,  then,  that  the  Romans  would 
invade  and  tread  down  Palestine  for  3£  years,  and  that 
Christians,  during  that  period,  would  be  bitterly  persecuted 
and  slain ;  but  still,  that,  after  the  same  period,  the  perse- 
cution would  cease  there,  and  the  religion  of  Jesus  become 
triumphant.  The  words  of  the  Saviour  in  Matt.  xxiv. 
compared  with  the  tenor  of  Rev.  xi.,  seem  to  lead  us  plain- 
ly and  safely  to  these  conclusions.  And  in  these  we  may 
acquiesce,  because  historical  facts  are  before  us,  which 
serve  to  show,  that  the  forty-two  months  or  1260  days  are  ^/ 
to  be  understood  in  their  plain  and  obvious  sense. 
10* 


114  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

We  may  now  come  to  the  other  periods,  named  in  Rev. 
xii.  xin.  The  writer  of  the  Apocalypse  here  passes  to 
the  second  great  catastrophe  in  his  august  drama,  and 
commences  it  with  a  proem  which  is  regressive.  The  wo- 
man clothed  with  the  sun,  and  having  under  her  feet  the 
moon  and  stars,  is  a  symbol  of  the  church  all  glorious  and 
resplendent  in  the  eyes  of  God  and  all  his  faithful  servants. 
The  man-child  who  is  born,  and  who  is  "  to  rule  all  nations 
with  a  sceptre  of  iron"  (Ps.  2:  9.  Rev.  12:  5),  is  doubtless 
the  Messiah.  The  dragon  ready  to  devour  him  at  his  birth, 
reminds  us  of  Herod's  attempt  to  massacre  the  infant  Sa- 
viour at  Bethlehem,  when  moved  to  such  a  deed  by  the 
great  adversary  of  Christianity.  The  child  caught  up  un- 
to God,  is  the  Saviour  ascended  to  glory.  The  flight  of 
the  woman  to  the  desert,  for  1260  days,  at  a  period  subse- 
quent to  this  (comp.  vs.  5,  6),  is  a  symbol  of  the  church 
fleeing  from  the  invading  Romans  and  persecuting  Jews, 
during  the  subjugation  of  Palestine.  At  Pella  in  the  wilder- 
ness, beyond  the  Jordan,  the  Christians  of  Judea  found 
safety  and  freedom,  Rev.  12:  6,  14.  The  latter  of  these 
two  verses  designates  again  the  same  period  of  retreat  and 
safety  as  the  sixth  verse,  but  in  a  different  way,  viz.,  it  is 
designated  (after  the  manner  of  Dan.  7:  25.  12:  7)  by  the 
expression  time  and  times  and  half  a  time,  Rev.  12:  14. 
When  this  period  expires,  then  the  church  is  freed  from 
the  desolating  power  in  Palestine;  as  it  was,  of  old,  freed 
from  the  like  power  in  the  days  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 
The  similarity  of  events  in  the  two  cases,  gives  occasion  to 
adopt  the  same  language  in  respect  to  the  continuance  of 
both. 

Only  one  more  period  of  the  like  extent  remains.  It  is 
that  designated  in  Rev.  13:  5 ;  where  it  is  said  of  the  beast 
which  rises  up  out  of  the  sea,  that  he  should  have  power 
to  persecute  during  forty-two  months.     Who  this  beast 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  115 

was,  we  cannot,  after  the  explanations  given  in  Rev.  xvn. 
well  doubt.  The  persecuting  power  of  imperial  Rome, 
and  spacially  that  power  as  exercised  by  Nero,  is,  beyond 
all  reasonable  question,  symbolized  by  the  beast  in  question. 

The  first  position  here,  viz.,  that  the  persecuting  power 
of  pagan  Rome  is  symbolized,  will  hardly  be  called  in 
question.  But  the  particular  reference  to  Nero  may  not 
improbably  be  questioned ;  and,  therefore,  a  few  words  in 
respect  to  this  will  not  be  out  of  place. 

To  the  beast  is  assigned  seven  heads  and  ten  horns,  Rev. 
13:  1.  That  the  seven  heads  represent  so  many  kings  or 
emperors,  (for  both  were  called  fiaadsig  by  the  Greeks), 
is  certain  from  the  explanation  given  in  Rev.  xvn.  10 : 
"  The  seven  heads  ....  are  seven  kings."  But  in  the 
language  of  the  Apocalyptist,  the  beast  stands  not  only  as 
a  symbol  of  the  imperial  power  of  Rome,  generically  con- 
sidered, but  frequently  for  that  power  as  exercised  by  some 
individual  king  or  emperor,  e.  g.  Nero.  Such  is  the  usage 
in  chap.  xm.  xvn.,  and  occasionally  elsewhere.  It  is  im- 
portant to  note  this ;  for  otherwise  the  reader  may  be  easily 
misled.  Whenever  the  beast  is  distinguished  from  the 
seven  heads,  it  then  is  employed  as  a  generic  symbol  of 
the  imperial  power ;  but  when  particular  and  specific  ac- 
tions or  qualities  of  a  personal  and  distinctive  nature  are 
predicated  of  the  beast,  it  designates  the  imperial  power 
as  individually  exercised,  e.  g.  by  Nero. 

That  Nero  was  in  the  exercise  of  this  power  when  John 
wrote  the  Apocalypse,  seems  to  be  quite  plain  from  Rev. 
xvii.  10  :  "  Five  [kings]  are  fallen ;  one  is ;  the  other  has 
not  yet  come,  but  when  he  shall  come,  he  will  continue 
but  a  short  time."  The  five  fallen  are  Julius  Caesar,  Au- 
gustus, Tiberius,  Caligula,  and  Claudius.  Of  course  Nero 
is  the  sixth ;  and  he  is  therefore  the  one  who  now  is.  Gal- 
ba,  who  reigned  but  seven  months,  makes  the  seventh. 


/ 


1 16  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

Some  recent  commentators  indeed,  e.  g.  Ewald,  Lucke,  and 
some  others,  begin  to  count  with  Augustus,  and  end  with 
Otho;  but  this  was  not  the  usual  method  of  reckoning 
among  either  the  Romans  or  the  Jews,  (as  I  hope  to  show 
elsewhere) ;  for,  that  they  usually  reckoned  in  the  manner 
above  stated,  may  be  seen  in  Suetonius'  Twelve  Caesars. 
So  also  in  Orac.  Sybill.  V.  12.  4  Ezra  12:  15.  Josephus, 
Antiq.  xviii.  2.  2,  also  xvm.  6,  10.  xix.  1,  11.  Chronicon 
Pascale,  p.  533  (edit.  Bonn.),  also  p.  360.  And  the  same 
is  true  of  some  other  ancient  writers.  This  seems  to  fix 
both  the  date  of  the  Apocalypse  itself,  and  to  designate  the 
individual  who  exercised  the  power  of  the  beast,  when  John 
wrote  the  Revelation. 

But  there  are  other  things  in  the  Apocalypse  which 
serve  also  to  characterize  Nero,  so  as  hardly  to  leave  room 
for  mistake.  Thus  in  chap.  xm.  3 :  "  [I  saw]  one  of  his 
heads  [viz.  of  the  beast]  as  it  were  smitten  unto  death; 
and  his  deadly  wound  was  healed."  Again  in  the  explan- 
atory part  of  the  second  catastrophe,  Rev.  17:  8,  the  angel 
says  to  John  :  "  The  beast  which  thou  sawest,  was,  and  is 
not,  and  will  come  up  from  the  abyss,  and  go  to  destruc- 
tion; and  those  who  dwell  on  the  earth  shall  wonder, 
(whose  names  are  not  written  in  the  book  of  life  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world),  when  they  behold  the  beast  that 
was,  and  is  not,  and  will  make  his  appearance,"  {naQtaxcu). 
Once  more  in  Rev.  xvn.  11 :  "  And  the  beast  which  was, 
and  is  not,  even  he  is  an  eighth,  and  is  of  the  seven,  and 
goeth  to  destruction." 

To  recount  the  efforts  which  have  been  made  to  inter- 
pret these  passages,  would  of  itself  require  somewhat  of  a 
volume.  I  have  never  seen,  and  cannot  find,  but  one  pro- 
bable solution ;  and  that  is  drawn  from  the  history  of  the 
times,  and  particularly  the  history  of  what  was  said  and 
generally  believed  respecting  Nero,  during  his  lifetime, 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  117 

and  even  long  after  his  death.  I  can  give  here  only  a  mere 
sketch ;  but  this  may  aid  the  further  inquiries  of  the  reader. 

It  was  predicted  by  soothsayers  of  Nero,  early  in  his 
reign,  that  he  would  be  deprived  of  his  office,  flee  his  coun- 
try, go  to  the  East,  and  there  recover  dominion,  specially  in 
Palestine.  Many  foretold,  that  he  would  eventually  recover 
the  whole  of  his  former  dominion.  The  passage  where 
this  is  fully  related,  may  be  found  in  Suetonius'  Nero, 
c.  40. 

This  report  was  modified  in  the  course  of  its  diffusion, 
and  assumed  a  great  variety  of  shapes.  The  most  usual 
one,  by  far,  seems  to  have  been,  that  Nero  would  be  assas- 
sinated, receive  a  wound  apparently  deadly,  recover  from 
it,  and  subsequently  go  to  the  East  and  return  from  it  with 
great  power,  ravage  Palestine,  lay  waste  the  church,  and 
finally  re-enter  Rome  with  fire  and  sword,  and  avenge  him- 
self of  all  his  former  enemies. 

In  consequence  of  this,  the  great  mass  of  the  communi- 
ty at  that  period,  do  not  appear  to  have  believed  in  the  re- 
ality of  Nero's  death,  at  the  time  when  he  was  assassinated. 
Suetonius  has  related  (Nero,  c.  57),  that  many  even  at 
Rome,  for  a  long  time,  decked  his  tomb  with  flowers,  ex- 
pecting and  hoping  that  he  would  revive.  Moreover,  in 
consequence  of  such  an  expectation,  persons  feigning  them- 
selves to  be  Nero,  appeared  in  several  of  the  distant  pro- 
vinces, and  made  great  disturbances.  Suetonius  has  told 
the  story  of  such  an  impostor  among  the  Parthians ;  Nero, 
c.  7,  see  also  Tacitus,  Hist.  I.  2.  Tacitus  has  also  told  a 
similar  story  of  another  impostor  in  Achaia  and  Asia  Mi- 
nor, Hist.  II.  8.  This  was  in  the  region  where  the  Apoca- 
lypse was  written,  and  shows  that  such  reports  must  have 
been  familiar  to  John's  readers.  Dio  Chrysostom,  (a  con- 
temporary of  Vespasian),  in  his  Oratio  de  Pulchritud.  (p. 
371)  relates,  that  most  persons  supposed  Nero  to  be  still 
alive. 


118  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

Thus  much  for  the  belief  of  the  heathen  in  general. 
Nor  was  this  belief  confined  to  them.  Christians  widely 
participated  in  it.  Passages  in  abundance  are  to  be  found 
in  parts  of  the  Sibylline  Oracles,  some  of  which  were 
written  about  A.  D.  80,  and  others  early  in  the  second  cen- 
tury, which  show  most  plainly  how  vivid  the  persuasion 
was,  that  Nero  would  again  make  his  appearance,  notwith- 
standing his  apparently  deadly  wound.  The  reader  may 
find  them  at  great  length,  in  Orac.  Sibill.  IV.  p.  520  seq. 
V.  p.  547  seq,,  also  p.  560  seq.,  p.  573  seq.,  p.  592  seq., 
p.  619  seq. ;  likewise  in  Lib.  VIII.  p.  688  seq.,  and  p.  693 
seq.  (edit.  Gallaeus) ;  all  written  by  early  Christians,  and 
expressive  of  their  feelings  and  expectations.  So  in  the 
oldest  Commentary  on  the  Apocalypse  which  is  extant, 
viz.  that  of  Victor inus  (t  303),  it  is  said  that  '  Nero  was 
the  beast  who  received  the  deadly  wound,'  Rev.  13:  3. 
Lactantius  adverts  to  the  opinion,  in  his  time,  that  Nero 
would  yet  make  his  reappearance,  De  Morte  Persecut.  c. 
2. ;  and  Sulpitius  Severus,  the  ecclesiastical  historian, 
near  the  close  of  the  third  century,  adverts  to  the  same  ex- 
pectation; Hist.  Sac.  II.  28.  II.  29.  Dial.  II.  So  late  as 
Augustine's  time  (about  A.'D.  400),  we  find  the  same  views 
still  cherished,  August.  De  Civit.  Dei,  XX.  19. 

The  question  is  not  now,  at  least  with  me  it  is  not, 
whether  the  writer  of  the  Apocalypse  did  himself  partici- 
pate in  this  vulgar  belief  respecting  Nero's  reappearance. 
I  have  no  apprehension  that  he  cherished  such  views  as 
these ;  certainly  not,  if  he  were  (as  I  believe)  an  inspired 
man.  My  apprehension  is,  that  in  describing  the  beast, 
i.  e.  Nero,  instead  of  calling  him  by  name,  (which  would 
have  been,  in  connection  with  what  he  said,  a  treasonable 
offence),  he  has  adverted  to  him  as  the  person  respecting 
whom  the  reports  in  question  were  current,  and  purposely 
adverted  to  him  in  such  a  way,  in  order  that  his  readers 
might  easily  know  who  was  meant, 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  119 

Several  circumstances  serve  to  confirm  this  view  of  the 
case.  After  describing  the  beast  whose  deadly  wound  was 
healed,  in  Rev.  13:  3 — 8,  he  adds  immediately  :  "  If  any 
man  has  an  ear,  let  him  hear,"  i.  e.  let  the  reader  very  at- 
tentively consider  who  is  meant  in  this  case.  He  then 
subjoins :  "  If  any  one  leads  into  exile,  he  shall  go  away 
into  exile;"  Rev.  13:  10.  In  other  words  :  *  He  of  whom 
I  have  been  speaking,  is  the  individual  who  exiles  Chris- 
tians ;  but  mark  well !  He  shall  himself  speedily  be  ex- 
iled.' In  chap,  xvii.,  the  effort  to  guide  his  readers  and 
put  them  on  their  guard  against  an  erroneous  construc- 
tion of  his  words,  is  still  more  visible.  After  speaking  of 
"  the  beast  which  was,  and  is  not,  and  will  come  up  from 
the  abyss,"  he  exclaims  :  rSlds  6  votg  6  t/aw  aocplav,  here  is 
a  meaning  which  comprises  wisdom."  In  other  words ; 
some  special  sagacity  is  needed  in  the  interpretation  of 
this  passage. 

By  speaking  in  this  way  does  not  John  show,  that  he 
does  not  expect  his  words,  i.  e.  his  description  of  the  beast, 
to  be  understood  as  if  he  employed  them  simply  to  express 
his  own  individual  belief,  but  only  that  he  introduces  upon 
the  scene  the  person  of  whom  such  things  are  reported, 
viz.,  such  as  that  his  deadly  wound  is  healed,  and  that  he 
will  again  resume  his  imperial  power  1 

Is  there  any  more  difficulty  in  such  a  supposition,  than 
there  is  when  the  Saviour  says  to  the  Pharisees  :  "  If  I  cast 
out  demons  by  Beelzebub,  by  whom  do  your  sons  cast  them 
out  1  Matt.  12:  27.  Is  there  any  more,  than  when  Jesus 
speaks  of  "  unclean  spirits  as  walking  through  desert 
places,  seeking  rest  and  finding  none  V1  Matt.  12:  43.  In 
both  cases  the  popular  opinion  is  cited,  without  any  re- 
mark whether  it  is  true  or  untrue.  The  speaker  had 
another  and  different  purpose  in  view.  So  here ;  John's 
object  was  secretly  to  intimate  to  his  readers,  who  was 


120  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

meant  by  the  beast ;  and  in  order  to  accomplish  this  ob- 
ject, he  has  repeated  those  things  which  popular  rumour 
had  spread  abroad  respecting  him,  or  at  least  alluded  to 
them.  But,  as  I  have  already  noted,  he  has  taken  care  in 
each  case,  to  give  a  caution  to  his  readers  how  they  inter- 
pret this,  or  what  use  they  make  of  it.  On  any  other 
ground,  why  should  these  cautions  be  inserted  in  these  par- 
ticular places,  and  omitted  in  all  the  other  symbolical  parts 
of  the  Apocalypse  1 

If  the  reader  is  satisfied  with  me  that  John  might  de- 
scribe Nero  in  this  way,  it  will  be  easy  to  show  him  how 
well  the  description  comports  with  the  substance  of  the  com- 
mon rumour.  According  to  this,  Nero  was  to  be  assassi- 
nated, and  to  receive  a  wound  apparently  deadly,  and  yet  to 
recover  from  it.  So  says  Rev.  13:  3,  "  One  of  the  heads 
[i.  e.  Nero]  was  smitten  as  it  were  unto  death,  and  yet  his 
deadly  wound  was  healed."  What  can  be  more  exact  ? 
To  detail  the  widely  diverse,  contradictory,  and  ineffectual 
efforts  that  have  been  made  to  explain  and  apply  this  in  a 
different  way,  would  occupy  too  much  time  here,  and  there- 
fore be  incompatible  with  my  design.  The  most  inge- 
nious among  them  is  that  of  Bertholdt,  who  supposes  Ju- 
lius Caesar  (who  was  assassinated)  to  have  been  the  head 
that  received  the  wound.  But  a  conclusive  objection  to 
this  is,  that  his  wound  was  not  healed,  and  that  there  was 
not  any  report  abroad  that  it  was  healed.  Another  con- 
clusive objection  is,  that  the  head  which  was  wounded  is 
described,  in  the  sequel,  as  persecuting  Christianity.  This 
could  not  be  true  of  Julius  Caesar,  who  perished  half  a 
century  before  the  Christian  era. 

Common  report  made  Nero,  after  reigning  a  while,  to 
disappear  for  some  time,  then  to  make  his  appearance 
again,  as  if  he  had  come  up  from  the  region  of  the  dead, 
and  finally  to  perish.     So  Rev.  17:  8,  "  The  beast  which 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  121 

thou  sawest,  was,  and  is  not,  and  will  come  up  from  the 
abyss  [the  world  of  the  dead,  or  the  grave],  and  go  to  de- 
struction." To  the  same  purpose  exactly  is  the  last  clause 
of  the  verse  just  quoted :  "  Beholding  the  beast,  that  he 
was,  and  is  not,  and  will  make  his  appearance,  naqtoTai" 
In  v.  11  of  the  same  chapter,  a  kind  of  paradoxical  de- 
scription is  given  of  this  same  beast :  "  The  beast  which 
was,  and  is  not,  even  he  is  an  eighth,  and  is  of  the  seven, 
and  goeth  to  destruction."  This  passage  resisted  all  the 
efforts  of  commentators,  before  they  began  to  follow  in 
the  path  where  the  history  of  Nero's  times  led  them.  Now 
it  becomes  comparatively  easy.  Nero,  who  at  first  was 
emperor,  then  was  deposed  and  assassinated,  and  after- 
wards was,  according  to  general  belief,  to  appear  again, 
would,  on  his  reappearance,  make  an  eighth  (oydoog,  not 
o  oydoog) ;  while,  at  the  same  time,  Nero  had  already  been 
reckoned  as  one  of  the  seven,  and  in  fact  belonged  to  them. 
If  the  reader  will  compare  this  part  of  v.  11,  with  the  ex- 
pressions "  will  come  up  from  the  abyss,"  "  xal  nuQtaxm 
and  will  make  his  appearance,"  in  v.  8,  he  will  see  that 
all  three  expressions  are  only  diverse  modes  of  designating 
one  and  the  same  thing.  To  say  that  he,  "  who  had  been 
one  of  the  seven,"  will  be  an  eighth,  is  of  course  the  same 
as  to  say,  that  he  will  reappear,  and  stand  again  in  his  for- 
mer place.  This,  according  to  almost '  universal  report 
and  belief,  Nero  was  expected  to  do. 

So  paradoxical  are  all  other  interpretations  of  this  pas- 
sage, or  so  arbitrary,  so  conjectural,  so  diverse,  and  there- 
fore unsatisfactory,  that  one  is  constrained  to  wonder  how 
critics  could  have  ever  acquiesced  in  them.  But  in  the 
interpretation  of  any  book,  where  the  reins  are  given  with- 
out check  to  fancy  and  imagination,  difficulties  of  this  kind 
are  leaped  over  instead  of  being  removed. 

Enough  to  show  the  probability,  I  might  almost  say  the 
11 


122  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

certainty,  that  Nero  is  aimed  at  in  this  part  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse. This  supposed,  all  the  difficulties  of  the  writer's 
language  appear  to  be  solved,  and  every  thing  moves  on 
harmoniously. 

We  return  then  to  our  principal  theme,  viz.  the  designa- 
tions of  time  in  the  book  before  us. 

To  the  beast  which  we  have  now  endeavoured  to  de- 
scribe, "  is  given  power  to  do  [his  will]  forty  and  two 
months  ;"  Rev.  13:  5.  The  context  shows  that  the  power 
and  will  in  question  have  respect  to  the  persecuting  of 
Christians.  Bitter  and  bloody  was  this  persecution ;  but 
it  was  to  last  only  3  J  years. 

Turn  we  now  to  the  pages  of  history,  and  we  shall  find 
that  Nero  commenced  his  horrible  persecution  of  Chris- 
tians, about  the  middle  or  in  the  latter  part  of  Nov.  A.  D. 
64.  All  agree  that  this  persecution  ended  immediately  on 
the  death  of  Nero;  and  this  took  place  on  the  day  that 
Galba  entered  Rome  and  was  proclaimed  emperor,  i.  e.  on 
the  9th  of  June,  A.  D.  68.  Here  then  is  the  often  repeated 
and  peculiar  period  of  3J  years,  being  only  a  few  days  of 
excess  beyond  that  measure  of  time.  By  this  small  excess 
of  only  a  few  days,  no  one  of  course  can  be  stumbled;  for 
how  is  it  reasonable  to  suppose,  that  in  respect  to  a  cele- 
brated period,  so  often  repeated  and  already  become  so 
famous,  a  statistical  exactness  would  or  could  be  aimed  at  ? 
Enough  that  only  a  few  days  at  most  can  be  considered 
as  supernumerary. 

Thus  becomes  apparent  the  truth  of  the  writer's  most 
solemn  declarations,  both  in  his  prologue  and  epilogue, 
that  the  time  is  short  or  near,  when  what  is  predicted 
will  take  place.  It  is  not  necessary,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  to  suppose  that  these  declarations  pertain  to  any 
more  than  the  leading  and  essential  parts  of  the  book  ;  but 
so  much  as  this  we  must  suppose,  in  order  to  elicit  from 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  123 

them  any  thing  like  their  real  meaning.  The  views  which 
I  have  given  above,  aim  at  interpreting  the  book  in  consis- 
tency with  those  declarations.  They  do  so  by  appeal  to 
historical  facts — facts  which  evidently  accord  with  the 
spirit  and  language  of  the  book. 

In  order  to  prevent  all  misconception  of  my  meaning,  I 
must  here  suggest,  that  while  the  destruction  of  the  beast 
is  by  implication  predicted  in  Rev.  13:  5,  as  taking  place 
after  forty-two  months,  and  thus  relief  and  deliverance  as 
being  given  to  the  church,  yet  the  manner  in  which  the 
second  catastrophe  in  the  Apocalypse,  viz.  chap,  xn — xix., 
is  presented,  makes  on  the  whole  the  distinct  impression, 
that  the  first  routing  of  the  beast  or  destruction  of  Nero, 
does  not  complete  the  whole  of  the  catastrophe.  Let  the 
reader  compare  the  16th  chap.,  specially  the  close  of  it, 
with  chap.  xvm.  xix.,  and  he  will  easily  discern,  that  al- 
though the  beast  of  John's  time  is  destroyed,  and  thus  the 
heathen  persecuting  power  paralyzed  for  a  time,  yet  the 
writer  evidently  supposes  the  contest  not  to  be  wholly  at  an 
end,  but  continued  for  a  period  which  he  does  not  limit. 
But  the  ultimate  triumph  of  the  church  is  certain ;  and  so 
chap.  xix.  represents  it  The  great  and  leading  event, 
however,  which  the  writer  had  particularly  in  view,  viz. 
the  end  of  Nero's  life  and  persecution,  was  to  take  place 
speedily ,  in  accordance  with  the  declarations  of  the  pro- 
logue and  epilogue,  as  exhibited  on  p.  106  seq.  above.  Such 
a  view  of  the  subject  shows  us,  that  an  indication  of  the 
protracted  contest  of  the  church  with  the  beast,  is  not  in- 
consistent with  the  language  which  John  has  employed  in 
the  proem  of  his  book. 

On  looking  back  and  reviewing  the  series  of  facts  which 
have  now  been  brought  into  view,  it  is  certainly  remark- 
able, that  so  many  important  occurrences,  in  the  history 
of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  church,  should  be  limited  to 


124  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

3J  years  or  forty-two  months.  The  wasting  of  Jerusalem 
and  Palestine  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  also  by  the 
Romans,  continued  just  about  the  same  length  of  time ; 
the  bitter  persecution  of  the  two  witnesses,  and  the  retreat 
of  the  woman  (the  church)  to  the  wilderness,  were  of  the 
same  extent  of  time ;  and  finally  the  persecution  by  Nero 
parallelizes  altogether  with  these  events,  as  to  continuance. 
No  wonder  then,  that  3|  years  (i.  e.  half  of  the  perfect 
number  seven)  should  have  become  a  very  common  limita- 
tion of  events  which  took  place,  or  were  supposed  to  take 
place,  within  a  moderate  period  of  time.  Thus  in  James 
5:  17  and  Luke  4:  25,  it  is  said,  that  in  the  time  of  Eli- 
jah "  it  did  not  rain  for  the  space  of  three  years  and  six 
months;"  although  in  1  Kings  17:  1  seq.  no  limitation  is 
assigned  to  the  time.  So  the  Rabbins :  "He  [the  king 
of  Babylon]  sent  Nebuzaradan,  that  he  might  lay  waste 
Jerusalem  three  years  and  six  months;"  Eccha  IV.  12. 
"Three  years  and  a  half  Vespasian  besieged  Jerusalem;" 
Eccha  I.  5.  "  Adrian  besieged  Bither  three  years  and  a 
half;"  Ecc.  II.  2.  "  The  punishment  of  the  antediluvi- 
ans, of  the  Egyptians,  and  of  the  impious  Gog  and  Magog, 
in  Gehenna,  will  be  twelve  months ;  that  of  Nebuchadnez- 
zar and  Vespasian  will  be  3J  years;"  Ecc.  I.  12.  All 
these  examples,  and  more  which  might  be  produced,  serve 
to  show  how  extensively  the  limitation  of  time  now  in 
question  was  employed  in  ancient  times.  It  accorded 
with  the  great  and  well  known  periods  of  devastation,  in 
earlier  times.  And  such  being  the  case,  a  statistical  exact- 
ness cannot  be  reasonably  supposed  to  be  aimed  at,  in 
cases  of  this  nature.  Any  near  approximation  to  the 
measure  of  time  in  question,  would  of  course  be  regarded 
as  a  sufficient  reason  for  setting  it  down  under  the  general 
rubric. 

We  have  now  gone  through  with  all  the  designations  of 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  125 

time  in  the  Apocalypse,  which  are  the  subjects  of  particu- 
lar interest,  excepting  one.  This  is  the  famous  thousand 
years,  from  which  the  Millennium  takes  its  name,  and 
which  is  predicted  in  Rev.  20:  4 — 7.  Is  this  to  be  literal- 
ly understood  ?     Or  is  a  day  here  to  be  counted  for  a  year  ? 

If  it  were  allowable  for  an  interpreter  to  give  that  mean- 
ing to  words  which  would  best  accord  with  his  own  wish- 
es, I  should  be  altogether  disposed  to  join  here  with  those, 
who  hold  that  every  day  in  the  Apocalypse  stands  for  a 
year.  Three  hundred  and  sixty  thousand  years,  (for  the 
year  of  prophetic  diction  is,  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt, 
12  months  of  30  days  each),  of  uninterrupted  prosperity 
to  the  church — of  the  church  as  extended  over  a  great 
portion  of  the  human  race — is  a  most  delightful  idea.  And 
inasmuch  as  the  promise  has  been  made,  that  "  the  seed 
of  the  woman  shall  bruise  the  serpent's  head,"  why  may 
we  not  suppose  that  the  universal  diffusion  and  triumph  of 
Christianity  will  endure,  for  a  period  as  long  as  this  ? 
Most  gladly  would  I  find  reason,  if  I  could,  to  acquiesce 
in  such  a  delightful  view  of  prophecy.  But  the  laws  of 
interpretation  forbid  me ;  and  how  can  I  repeal  them  1 

No  intimation  is  given  by  John,  in  Rev.  20:  4 — 6,  that 
days  stand  for  years.  The  analogy  of  the  book,  if  we  may 
trust  the  results  to  which  we  have  already  come,  is  against 
such  an  interpretation.  Designations  of  time  are,  in  their 
very  nature,  the  least  susceptible  of  all  parts  of  language, 
of  bearing  a  secondary  or  arbitrary  meaning.  In  their 
own  nature  they  are  capable  of  but  one  tropical  sense ; 
and  this  is  where  a  few  particular  numbers  are  taken,  by 
customary  usage,  as  the  symbols  of  some  generic  and  ab- 
stract idea ;  e.  g.  when  seven  is  taken  as  the  symbol  of 
completeness  or  fulness,  or  a  thousand  for  the  idea  of  much, 
great  multitude,  large  quantity,  etc.  Even  this  use  is 
exceedingly  limited  extending  to  only  three,  seven,  and 
11* 


126  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

perhaps  ten,  forty,  one  thousand,  and  ten  thousand.  In  all 
other  cases,  number  is  simply  number,  literally  number 
and  nothing  else.  From  the  nature  of  the  case,  those  in- 
stances only  can  be  excepted,  where  the  writer  or  speaker 
tells  us  expressly,  that  he  makes  a  less  time  (e.  g.  one  day) 
the  representative  of  a  greater  period  (e.  g.  one  year). 

v  A  thousand  years ,  then,  in  Rev.  20:  4 — 6,  must  mean 

simply  what  it  says,  or  it  must  be  interpreted  as  being 
symbolically  employed  in  order  to  designate  the  generic 
idea  of  a  very  long  period.  That  the  Scriptures  afford 
some  ground  for  interpreting  it  in  this  latter  manner,  may 
be  seen  by  considering  for  a  moment  the  nature  of  the  fol- 
lowing expressions :  "  The  Lord  make  you  a  thousand 
times  as  many  as  you  are  !  God  who  keepeth  covenant 
to  a  thousand  generations.  How  should  one  chase  a  thou- 
sand !  If  there  be  an  interpreter,  one  of  a  thousand. 
The  cattle  on  a  thousand  hills  are  mine.  A  day  in  thy 
courts  is  better  than  a  thousand.  A  thousand  shall  fall  at 
thy  side.  Though  he  live  a  thousand  years  twice  told. 
One  man  among  a  thousand  have  I  found.  A  little  one 
shall  become  a  thousand.  The  city  that  went  out  by  a 
thousand.  One  day  is  with  the  Lord  as  a  thousand  years, 
and  a  thousand  years  as  one  day." 

Thus  there  evidently  runs,  through  the  whole  Bible,  an 
idiom  which  employs  a  thousand  as  an  indefinite  expres- 
sion to  designate  a  great  number,  a  large  quantity ;  and 
we  act  consistently  as  critics,  if  we  so  interpret  it  in  Rev. 
20:  4 — 6.  But  we  stand  on  ground  still  more  safe  and 
certain,  if  we  interpret  it  simply  in  accordance  with  its 
literal  and  obvious  meaning. 

V  That  the  final  proportion  of  men  who  will  be  redeemed, 
must  be  greater,  yea  much  greater  than  that  which  will  be 
lost,  seems  to  be  made  certain  by  the  ancient  promise, 
that  "  the  seed  of  the  woman  should  bruise  the  serpent's 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  127 

head."  Gen.  3:  15.  But  how  can  this  promise  be  true, 
if,  after  all,  Satan  shall  destroy  the  larger  portion  of  the 
human  race  ?  We  may  reasonably  conclude,  then,  that 
during  the  millennial  period,  when  many  of  the  present 
causes  of  abridging  and  destroying  human  life  shall  cease, 
and  the  means  of  subsistence  be  greatly  increased,  that  the 
world  will  support  gome  twenty  or  more  times  as  many 
people  as  it  now  does,  (which  it  is  clearly  capable  of  do- 
ing), and  that  the  predominant  part  of  these,  during  all 
that  period,  will  be  Christians.  I  say  the  predominant 
part,  for  this  is  all  that  Rev.  xx.  allows  me  to  say.  Im- 
mediately after  the  expiration  of  the  thousand  years,  Gog 
and  Magog  come  up  "  from  the  four  corners  of  the  earth," 
i.  e.  its  distant  extremities — come  up  "  in  numbers  as  the 
sand  of  the  sea,"  in  order  "to  make  war  against  the 
saints,"  Rev.  20:  8.  Now  there  is  not  the  least  intima- 
tion here,  on  the  part  of  the  writer,  that  Gog  and  Magog 
are  apostates  or  deserters  from  the  Christian  camp.  On 
the  contrary,  their  abode  is  not  among  Christians  in  the 
civilized  and  christianized  parts  of  the  world,  but  only 
in  the  four  corners  or  most  distant  extremities  of  the 
world.  That  the  number  of  them  is  said  to  be  "like  the 
sands  of  the  sea,"  is  enough  to  show,  that  Christianity  had 
not  yet,  during  the  thousand  years,  extended  to  the  whole 
of  the  human  race.  That  apostates  from  Christianity, 
and  from  true  Christianity,  (for  surely  such  is  the  religion 
of  the  Millennium),  could  at  once  be  made  of  numbers  so 
great  as  are  here  named,  is  out  of  all  reasonable  question. 
The  thing  is  impossible  on  the  ground  of  divine  promise, 
and  improbable  as  it  respects  the  habits  and  the  nature  of 
sanctified  men. 

It  would  be  foreign  to  my  present  purpose  to  dwell  on 
the  question:  Who  are  Gog  and  Magog?  The  reader 
may  find  them,  and  the  history  of  the  war  which  they  will 


128  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

wage,  in  Ezek.  xxxviii.  xxxix.  When  Ezekiel  and  John 
wrote,  Gog  and  Magog,  in  the  common  language  of  the 
day,  were  names  which  imported  in  Palestine  and  in  the 
East,  what  the  word  Scythian  did  of  old  to  the  Greeks  and 
the  Romans.  They  were  the  hordes  of  the  northern  Cau- 
casus region,  who  were  regarded  as  barbarians,  and  (if  I 
may  make  use  of  a  phrase  familiar  to  us)  as  living  out  of 
the  world.  By  people  such  as  these,  John  predicts  that 
the  third  and  last  great  assault  will  be  made  upon  the 
church.  It  will  be  violent,  but  short.  And  the  sequel  will 
be  the  universal  reign  of  Christianity ;  for  Satan  will  now 
be  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire  (Rev.  20:  10),  and  there  will 
of  course  "  be  nothing  to  hurt  or  offend  in  all  God's  holy 
mountain."* 

*  In  Ezek.  38:  2,  Gog  and  Magog  are  associated  with  Meshech 
and  Tubal;  which  circumstance  gives  us  a  clue  to  the  locality  of 
those  nations.  There  is  no  room  to  doubt,  that  Meshech  and  Tu- 
bal lie  near  the  south-eastern  extremity  of  the  Euxine  Sea,  or  be- 
tween that  and  the  Caspian  lake  ;  see  Rosenm.  Bib.  Geog.  I.  p.  240. 
Ges.  Lex.  in  verba.  The  country  of  Magog  must  have  been  some- 
where in  this  vicinity,  and  most  probably  it  lay  northward  among 
the  Caucasian  mountains.  So  the  whole  current  of  ancient  wri- 
ters seems  to  have  decided.  Jerome  (on  Ezek.  38:  2)  says,  that 
"Magog  means  the  Scythian  nations,  fierce  and  innumerable  who 
live  beyond  the  Caucasus  and  the  lake  Maeotis,  and  near  the 
Caspian  Sea,  and  spread  out  onward  even  to  India."  In  the  same 
manner  Theodoret  speaks,  and  also  Asseman,  Biblioth.  Orient.  111. 
Pars  II.,  16, 17,  20.  The  Arabian  books  are  full  of  appeals  to  Gog 
and  Magog;  as  may  be  seen  in  Klaproth's  Asiat.  Magazine,  I.  p. 
138  seq.,  where  a  large  selection  of  passages  is  exhibited.  Moham- 
med has  more  than  once  named  Gog  and  Magog  in  the  Coran. 
In  Sura  XV1J.1. 94,  he  alludes  to  Alexander  the  Great  as  building  a 
high  wall  of  brass  and  iron,  between  the  mountain  passes  of  the 
north,  in  order  to  keep  Gog  and  Magog  from  making  excursions 
into  the  more  southern  regions.  Toward  the  end  *of  the  world, 
this  wall,  as  he  represents  it,  will  be  broken  down,  and  Gog  and 
Magog  will  rush  through,  and  lay  waste  the  regions  of  the  South. 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  129 

The  assumption  so  often  made,  that  the  end  of  the  world 
is  immediately  to  follow  the  overthrow  of  Gog  and  Magog, 
is  by  no  means  certain,  nor  even  at  all  probable.     It  does 

They,  with  other  infidels,  will  then  all  be  turned  into  Gehenna, 
and  the  end  of  the  world  will  come.  Another  allusion  to  this  same 
tradition  may  be  found  in  Sura  XXI.  95  seq. 

In  accordance  with  this,  a  Syrian  Jacobite  Christian,  about  the 
same  period  in  which  Mohammed  lived,  wrote  a  poem  in  Syriac 
hexameters,  which  has  been  published  in  G.  Kn6s'  Syriac  Chres- 
tomathy,  A.  D.  1807.  This  remarkable  production  also  assigns  to 
Alexander  the  building  of  an  iron  wall  or  gates  between  the  north- 
ern [Caucasian]  mountain-pass,  in  order  to  keep  out  Gog  and  Ma- 
gog from  more  southern  Asia.  IN  ear  the  close  of  the  world  the 
gates  are  to  be  opened,  and  Gog  and  Magog,  with  countless  hosts, 
will  overrun  and  destroy  all  the  southern  countries. 

Facts  illustrating  the  traditions  developed  by  these  ancient  wri- 
ters, may  easily  be  stated.  Russia  took  possession  of  the  region  be- 
tween the  Euxine  and  Caspian  Seas,  about  A.  D.  1772.  S.  G. 
Emelin,  a  man  of  scientific  acquirements,  was  soon  sent  out  to  explore 
the  newly  acquired  territory.  In  his  book  of  travels,  published  in 
A.  D.  1774,  he  mentions  that  he  found  a  high  wall,  with  towers  at 
short  distances,  and  much  of  them  in  a  state  of  entire  preservation, 
running  from  Derbend,  the  head  quarters  of  the  Russians  on  the 
Caspian  Sea,  toward  the  Euxine  Sea,  and  extending,  according  to 
the  universal  tradition  of  the  inhabitants  of  that  region,  entirely  to 
the  Euxine  Sea.  All  agreed  in  calling  this  the  wall  of  Gog  and 
Magog. 

In  addition  to  this  it  should  be  stated,  that  the  celebrated  English 
traveller,  R.  Kerr  Porter,  visited  Derbend  in  1819,  where  the  same 
story  was  told  him  respecting  the  wall  in  question ;  but  accident 
prevented  his  going  to  see  it;  Travels  II.  p.  520. 

The  reader  who  wishes  to  pursue  the  further  investigation  of  this 
curious  subject,  may  consult  Rosenrn.  Bib.  Geog.  I.  p.  244.  Ritter's 
Erdkunde.  Th.  [1.  p.  834  seq.  Bayer,  De  Muro  Caucaseo,  Opusc. 
p.  94.  Reinegg,  Beschreibung  des  Caucasus,  I.  p.  120.  See  also 
Rosenm.  Comm.  in  Ezek.  38:  2. 

Thus  it  appears,  that  those  "  Asiatic  Scythians,"  Gog  and  Magog, 
were  a  people  well  known  in  ancient  times,  and  greatly  dreaded. 
We  cannot  suppose  that  either  Ezekiel  or  John  meant  their  names 


130  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

not  follow  from  the  fact,  that  John  immediately  proceeds, 
in  his  prophecy,  to  give  an  account  of  the  general  judg- 
ment. All  that  follows  from  this  is,  that  it  was  to  John's 
purpose  to  touch  next  upon  this,  having  shown  the  com- 
plete and  final  triumph  of  Christianity  over  all  enemies. 
The  usage  of  the  prophets,  in  respect  to  junctions  of  such 
a  nature,  in  their  descriptions,  can  hardly  fail  to  be  no- 
ticed by  every  observing  eye.  For  example ;  in  Is.  n.,  the 
prophet  joins  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  with  the  severe 
punishment  of  the  oppressive  and  luxurious  Jews  of  that 
time.  He  goes  still  further,  and  even  apparently  links  the 
one  with  the  other  by  the  phrase  in  that  day.  Again  he 
describes,  in  most  graphic  language,  the  punishment  of  his 
contemporaries,  chap.  vn.  vm.,  and  then  unites  with  this 
description  one  of  the  most  prominent  Messianic  passages 
in  the  Old  Testament,  viz.,  that  in  chap,  ix.,  "  To  us  a 
Child  is  born,  a  Son  is  given,  etc."  In  chap.  x.  he  gives 
a  copious  account  of  the  invasion  of  the  king  of  Assyria, 
and  of  his  overthrow ;  and  then  he  immediately  subjoins  a 
glowing  description  of  the  Messianic  and  Millennial  day, 
chap.  xi.  Here  only  the  particle  1  [and)  =  xal  in  Rev. 
20:  11,  stands  between  the  two  descriptions,  without  an 
intimation  of  any  interval.  With  the  overthrow  of  Idu- 
mea,  in  chap,  xxxiv.,  he  unites  a  glowing  description  of 
the  Messianic  day,  chap.  xxxv.      In  the  last  twenty-six 


to  be  literally  interpreted ;  but  so  much  we  must  suppose,  viz.,  that 
both  prophets  used  these  appellations  as  familiar  designations  of  a 
numerous  and  savage  people.  It  is  the  work  of  destruction  which 
they  rush  forth  to  accomplish — the  destruction  of  the  people  of 
God.  But  they  are  speedily  arrested,  and  meet  with  a  fearful 
doom.  So  will  it  doubtless  be  with  the  last  and  powerful  enemies 
of  the  church,  from  whatever  quarter  they  may  come.  "  When 
the  enemy  shall  rush  in  like  a  flood,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  will  lift 
up  a  standard  against  them." 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  131 

chapters  of  this  prophet,  the  constant  interchange  of  deliv- 
erance from  the  Babylonish  exile  and  the  deliverance 
wrought  by  the  Messiah,  cannot  escape  any  but  the  most 
inattentive  reader. 

Thus  it  is  in  the  evangelical  prophet.  Have  any  others 
followed  in  the  same  path  ?  They  have.  The  book  of 
Daniel  unites  with  the  end  of  the  four  great  monarchies, 
viz.,  the  Babylonish,  the  Medo-Persian,  that  of  Alexander 
the  Great,  and  that  of  his  immediate  Successors,  the  com- 
ing of  the  Messiah,  yea  the  coming  of  the  Millennium. 
So  in  chap.  n.  vn.  and  ix.  In  other  prophets  the  same 
thing  is  equally  common,  in  cases  of  Messianic  prophecy. 

Well  has  it  been  said,  by  an  acute  and  learned  interpre- 
ter of  our  times,  that  the  prophets  are  like  those,  who, 
placed  on  an  eminence,  have  a  widely  extended  view  of  a 
distant  country.  But  that  country  is  one  of  hills  and 
mountains,  not  an  extended  plain.  Of  course  they  can 
see  only  the  tops  of  eminences,  and  have  no  means  of 
judging  how  extensive  are  the  valleys  or  table-lands  be- 
tween. They  do  not  undertake,  therefore,  to  calculate 
distances.  In  speaking  of  these  things,  they  turn  the  at- 
tention of  their  readers  only  to  what  they  have  seen  them- 
selves, i.  e.  the  prominent  parts  of  the  landscape. 

So  with  John  and  other  prophets.  Great  events — the 
prominences  of  history — are  seen  and  described,  but  (for 
the  most  part  at  least)  not  the  intervals  of  time  between. 
In  the  case  before  us,  the  general  judgment  comes  after 
the  description  of  the  fall  of  Gog  and  Magog,  because  the 
writer,  having  now  brought  the  church  to  a  state  of  uni- 
versal triumph  and  security,  hastens  to  complete  his  work 
by  pointing  out  the  glorious  rewards  that  will  ensue,  and  the 
everlasting  blessedness  of  the  church  triumphant. 

My  belief  therefore  is,  that  the  setting  sun  of  our  world 
will  be  in  unclouded  glory.     "  Its  hoary  head,"  to  borrow 


132  DESIGNATIONS  OF  TIME 

from  another  sacred  writer,  "  will  indeed  be  a  crown  of 
glory."  My  principal  reason  for  this  is,  that  the  promises 
made  to  the  church  and  to  its  Redeemer  ;  the  benevolence 
of  the  Godhead,  and  the  triumph  of  mercy  over  the  malig- 
nity and  craft  of  Satan ;  and  also  the  analogy  of  all  God's 
purposes  and  doings,  in  which  there  is  always  an  advance 
towardt  he  highest  good — all  unite  in  seeming  to  require 
such  an  interval  of  rest  and  peace  and  prosperity  to  his 
church.  How  long  this  will  be,  how  many  will  become 
sons  and  daughters  of  the  Lord  Almighty,  I  do  not  pretend 
to  know.  But  so  much  we  may  believe,  viz.,  that  "  the 
Seed  of  the  woman  will  bruise  the  serpent's  head ;"  and 
therefore  that  the  number  of  the  redeemed,  from  our  fallen 
race,  will  at  last  immeasurably  exceed  that  of  the  lost. 

What  a  consoling  hope,  in  such  a  world  of  sin  and  misery 
as  this!  Few  indeed,  thus  far,  can  with  any  probability 
be  numbered  among  the  children  of  God.  Every  year  is 
sending  its  thirty  millions  to  his  tribunal,  and  has  long 
been  executing  the  same  tremendous  task.  But  is  it  to  be 
always  so  1  The  thousand  years  of  triumpli^o  the  church 
we  have  seen  not  to  be  strictly  universal.  Numbers  as 
the  sand  of  the  sea  are  still  in  the  regions  of  Gog  and  Ma- 
gog. And  shall  one  thousand  years  only,  of  the  reign  of 
Christianity  thus  limited,  be  allowed  for  the  Redeemer's 
triumph,  and  more  than  six  thousand  for  Satan's  ?  For- 
bid it,  all  that  is  benevolent  in  the  Godhead !  Forbid  it, 
dying  love  of  Jesus  !  Forbid  it,  all  the  precious  promises 
which  the  words  of  everlasting  truth  present,  engraved  in 
characters  of  light,  and  elevating  the  hopes  of  dying  man 
to  a  heaven  of  unfading  glory,  filled  with  countless  beings 
made  in  the  image  of  their  God  and  Saviour  ! 

But  while  I  do  most  earnestly  hope,  and  cannot  but  be- 
lieve, that  the  close  of  the  world's  existence  will  be  a  pe- 
riod of  great  prosperity  and  glory  to  the  church,  I  cannot 


IN  THE  PROPHECIES.  133 

in  any  degree  harmonize  with  those  views  respecting  this 
period,  which  apply  to  it  the  descriptions  in  Rev.  xxi.  xxn., 
and  the  corresponding  portions  of  the  Old  Testament  pro- 
phets. The  new  heaven  and  the  new  earth,  in  Rev.  20:  1, 
is  plainly  not  the  old  heaven  and  old  earth  refitted  and  re- 
paired. "  The  first  heaven  and  the  first  earth  have  passed 
away,  and  there  is  no  more  sea,"  Rev.  21:  1.  Peter  says, 
also,  that  "  the  heavens  shall  pass  away  with  a  great  noise, 
and  the  elements  burning  shall  be  dissolved,  and  the  earth  */ 
and  the  works  therein  shall  be  burned  up,  zaxayiur^ixat, 
shall  be  utterly  consumed."  2  Pet.  3:  10.  The  general 
judgment,  preceded  by  the  universal  resurrection  of  the 
dead,  Rev.  20:  11 — 15,  is  evidently,  in  the  view  of  the  sa- 
cred writers,  the  end  of  the  probation-state  of  the  human 
race.  So  Paul,  who  also  informs  us,  that  then  the  media- 
torial office  itself  will  be  given  up,  so  that  the  work  of  re- 
demption can  no  longer  proceed ;  1  Cor.  15:  24 — 28. 
These  facts,  being  thus  plainly  established,  it  follows  that 
a  place  (so  to  speak)  entirely  new,  fitted  for  the  residence 
of  beings  with  "  spiritual  bodies,"  (as  Paul  calls  them  ^ 
1  Cor.  15:  44),  is  absolutely  necessary.  The  apprehension 
that  the  present  material  world  is  to  be  so  improved  and 
modified,  as  to  become  the  future  residence  of  the  blessed, 
agrees  neither  with  the  future  state  and  condition  of  the 
blessed,  nor  with  the  declarations  of  the  Scriptures,  nor 
with  the  most  ardent  hopes  of  spiritual  Christians.  No; 
all  true  believers  "  are  to  be  caught  up  to  meet  the  Lord 
in  the  air,  and  so  shall  they  ever  be  with  the  Lord,"  1 
Thess.  4:  17. 

But  I  am  wandering  from  my  theme,  allured  by  the  de- 
lightful prospects  of  the  church  which  are  unfolded  in  the 
Apocalypse.     Let  us  return,  and  briefly  conclude  the  pre- 
sent discussion,  in  which  mere  hints  have  been  aimed  at 
12 


134  CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 

and  suggested,  by  a  simple  recapitulation  of  what  has  been 
done,  and  the  grounds  on  which  it  stands. 


§  5.  Concluding  Remarks. 

There  must  be,  there  are,  some  principles  applicable  to 
the  interpretation  of  language,  which  all  men  are  bound 
to  acknowledge  and  observe.  If  this  be  not  true,  then 
there  is  an  end  to  all  certainty  in  the  results  of  interpreta- 
tion, and  we  never  can  tell  what  the  Scriptures  do  mean, 
or  what  they  may  not  mean. 

The  reason  why  I  have  endeavored  to  show  that  the 
double  or  occult  sense  of  Scripture  is  inadmissible,  is,  that 
if  we  admit  it,  then  we  must  give  up  all  hope  of  ever  fix- 
ing with  certainty  upon  the  original  meaning  of  many  por- 
tions of  Scripture,  and  specially  of  the  prophecies.  If  a 
part  of  what  Daniel  predicts,  for  example,  must  be  applied 
first  to  Antiochus  Epiphanes  (which  is  certain),  and  then 
may  be  applied,  as  to  its  occult  meaning,  to  Antichrist,  to 
the  Pope,  to  Mohammed,  or  to  all  of  these,  then  there  is 
an  end  to  all  certainty  in  exegesis,  because  there  is  no  tri- 
bunal before  which  the  occult  sense  can  be  brought  and  by 
which  it  may  be  tried.  It  is  because  the  prophecies  have 
been  so  extensively  interpreted  in  this  way,  specially  in 
the  English  and  American  churches,  that  I  have  thought 
it  important  to  say  so  much  on  this  subject.  He,  who  un- 
derstands the  lengths  to  which  this  principle  of  interpreta- 
tion has  been  carried,  will  not  accuse  me  of  having  over- 
rated the  importance  of  the  subject. 

It  has  also  been  a  very  common  thing,  even  among  the 
better  class  of  interpreters  in  some  cases,  to  speak  of  some 
of  the  prophecies,  and  to  treat  them,  as  having  been  unin- 
telligible at  the  time  when  they  were  uttered,  and  as  com- 
ing to  be  understood  only  after  they  are  fulfilled.     Such  a 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS.  135 

supposition  of  course  throws  to  the  winds  some  of  the  lead- 
ing principles  of  hermeneutics ;  for  if  the  language  ever 
had  a  meaning,  it  must  have  been  discoverable  by  the  aid 
of  those  principles ;  and  if  a  meaning  is  ever  assigned  to  it, 
it  must  be  in  accordance  with  these,  or  else  it  can  be  of 
no  solid  worth.  An  arbitrary  application  of  language  to 
particular  events,  without  support  from  grammar  and  exe- 
gesis, is  conjecture,  not  exposition.  Besides  all  this,  such 
a  prophecy  was  at  most  no  prediction  surely,  no  revelation ; 
for,  by  the  supposition,  it  meant  nothing  intelligible  before 
the  events  took  place  to  which  it  relates,  and  therefore 
could  make  and  did  make  no  revelation  at  all. 

It  is  time  for  the  Christian  church  to  have  done  with 
such  problems  as  these.  On  such  a  ground,  the  Bible  is 
no  "  light  shining  in  a  dark  place,"  as  Peter  affirms  it  to 
be.  It  only  adds  another  deepening  shade  to  the  gloom  al- 
ready spread  around.  Why  should  not,  then,  such  a  prin- 
ciple, so  dishonourable  to  divine  teachers  and  to  that  word 
which  is  "  a  light  to  our  feet  and  a  lamp  to  our  path,"  be 
held  up  to  view,  and  its  deformities  exposed  ? 

As  to  that  portion  of  this  little  work  which  has  respect 
to  the  times  designated  in  the  Apocalypse  and  in  the  book 
of  Daniel,  the  disputes  of  the  present  day  sufficiently  show 
the  necessity  of  such  inquiries.  I  have  endeavored  to 
walk  in  a  straight  and  simple  path.  My  first  great  position 
has  been,  that  the  Bible  means  what  it  says.  When  it  de- 
signates times  and  seasons,  therefore,  the  simple  and  ob- 
vious sense  of  the  words  is  always  to  be  followed,  unless 
there  is  some  special  reason  for  departing  from  it.  That 
reason  can  be  only  one,  viz.,  when  the  context  gives  us  in- 
formation that  such  a  departure  is  to  be  made.  This  is 
done  in  Exek.  4:  5,  6,  and  in  Num.  14:  34.  The  passage 
in  Dan.  9:  24  plainly,  as  we  have  shown  pp.  79  seq.,  does 
not  belong  to  this  category.     Other  cases  than  these,  I  am 


V 


136  CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 

not  aware  of.  In  all  others,  therefore,  where  no  such  de- 
parture from  the  obvious  sense  is  intimated,  it  follows  of 
course  that  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  depart  from  it.  If  this 
be  not  a  principle  plain  and  certain,  I  know  of  none  in  the 
so  called  science  of  hermeneutics. 

My  second  aim  has  been,  to  prove  that  history  has  pre- 
served to  us  such  a  knowledge  of  facts,  as  will  serve  to 
show  that  the  prophecies  in  question  have  been  fulfilled, 
in  their  plain  and  obvious  sense.  If  this  effort  has  been 
successful,  then  the  whole  subject  is  at  rest.  The  contro- 
sies  of  the  present  day,  about  the  Pope,  and  Mohammed, 
and  the  French  Revolution,  and  the  infidel  corps  of  Ulu- 
minati,  and  all  like  matters  or  persons,  is  a  thing  which 
has  no  specific  ground  or  basis  in  Daniel  or  in  John. 
What  John  declared  would  take  -place  shortly,  happened 
according  to  his  prediction  ;  and  if  so,  the  dispute,  whether 
it  is  all  to  happen  over  again,  after  so  many  centuries,  can- 
not be  a  dispute  of  much  interest  or  importance.  One  ful- 
filment is  enough. 

Even  if  we  should  concede  that  1260  days  mean  so 
many  years,  and  that  Romanism  is  the  object  of  John's  pre- 
dictions, yet  I  do  not  see  how  we  can  ascertain  where  to 
begin  this  period.  The  Romish  church  was  three  or  four 
centuries  in  coming  into  being ;  or  rather,  one  might  even 
say  with  truth,  that  it  was  not  consummated  until  the 
Council  of  Trent.  Where  then  is  the  terminus  a  quo  ? 
I  am  aware  of  the  usual  periods  to  which  so  many  refer 
the  beginnings  of  this  apostasy.  But  they  are  not  at  all 
of  a  nature  sufficiently  definitive  or  decisive  to  be  entitled 
to  such  a  bad  pre-eminence.  It  must  be  mere  conjecture 
which  fixes  upon  the  beginning  of  such  a  period  for  such 
reasons ;  and  of  course  the  end  must  be  like  the  beginning, 
i.  e.  indefinite.  The  truth  is,  that  heathen-idolatry,  and 
that  only,  is  characterized  in  Rev.  xni.  seq. ;  and  all  efforts 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS.  137 

to  make  out  any  thing  different  from  this,  must  be  revolting 
to  the  simple  reader,  who  seeks  merely  to  understand  what 
the  writer  meant. 

Plain  as  all  this  seems  to  my  mind,  yet  I  see  many,  and  ' 
some  very  sensible  persons  too,  greatly  agitated  about  the 
end  of  the  world,  which,  as  many  predict  at  the  present 
day,  is  to  come  in  1843.  I  do  not  say,  it  will  not;  for  I 
do  not  know  this.  But  I  do  say,  that  it  would  be  well  for 
the  public  to  call  to  mind  the  many  predictions  of  the  like 
nature  which  have  already  been  wrecked,  and  which  were 
maintained  with  as  much  learning,  and  as  much  confi- 
dence too,  as  present  theories  are.  Specially  would  they 
do  well  to  call  to  mind  the  notable  case  of  John  Albert 
Bengel,  one  of  the  best  Greek  scholars  and  sacred  exposi- 
tors of  the  last  age,  and  the  editor  of  the  famous  critical  ~ 
edition  of  the  New  Testament  which  bears  his  name.  His 
piety  and  talents  are  beyond  fair  question ;  and  sobriety, 
on  all  other  subjects  except  the  Apocalypse,  was  a  promi- 
nent trait  of  his  character.  He  spent  the  flower  of  his  life 
in  pursuit  of  the  secret  meanings  of  the  Revelation.  He 
came  to  a  full  persuasion,  at  last,  that  he  had  discovered 
them.  He  announced  them  to  the  world  ;  and  in  so  doing, 
he  says,  with  much  modesty,  that  the  only  reason  he  has 
to  doubt  the  disclosure  of  these  secrets  is,  that  it  was  made 
to  so  unworthy  a  person  as  himself.  Yet,  in  the  full  confi- 
dence that  the  occult  matters  of  the  Apocalypse  had  actu- 
ally been  revealed  to  him  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  published 
his  book.  Most  devoutly  does  he  thank  God  for  the  won- 
derful disclosures  which  it  is  designed  to  make.  The 
grand  period  as  to  all  the  leading  parts  of  the  great  drama, 
according  to  his  book,  was  to  be  consummated  in  A.  D. 
1836.  If  the  face  of  the  world  should  not  be  entirely 
changed  at  that  period,  then^  he  says,  the  church  must 
believe  that  he  has  been  mistaken.  But  that  the  change 
12* 


138  CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 

expected  would  take  place,  he  entertained  not  a  shadow 
of  doubt. 

So  far,  this  great  and  good  man.  And  we — we  have 
lived  to  see  1836,  and  the  world  is  still  moving  round  the 
sun,  and  its  busy  inhabitants  going  on  much  as  in  days  of 
yore.  We  never  once  thought,  at  that  period,  of  the  Ben- 
gelian  revelations ;  and  cannot  now  discover  the  record  of 
them  on  the  page  of  history. 

Many  a  confident  prediction,  uttered  by  other  romancers 
in  prophecy,  has  met  with  the  same  fate,  and  been  wrecked 
on  the  rocks  whither  the  mighty  stream  of  time  hath  borne 
them.  Such  is  doubtless  the  destiny  of  many  others  also; 
and  yet,  all  this  does  not  seem  to  diminish  the  confidence 
of  those  who  write  theological  romances  !  Be  it  so.  If 
there  must  needs  be  enthusiasts  and  visionaries,  (and  so  it 
would  seem),  why  may  not  this  department  of  exegetical 
theology  exhibit  its  due  proportion  1 

Once  for  all,  however,  we  may  beseech  such  interpreters 
to  listen  to  a  word  of  caution.  I  will  not  reproach  them 
with  the  presumption  of  undertaking  to  expound  a  book, 
which,  of  all  others  in  the  Bible,  demands  the  deepest  know- 
ledge of  the  original  Scriptures,  and  of  the  prophetic  idi- 
om, when  they  have  not  well  studied  either.  But  may  I 
not  ask,  how  it  came  about,  that  when  Jerusalem  was  to  be 
destroyed,  the  exact  time  was  so  carefully  kept  back,  until 
the  very  eve  of  its  accomplishment,  from  the  disciples  of 
Christ?  Mark  tells  us  (13:  3),  that  the  three  favourite 
disciples  went  to  him  and  asked  him  the  question  respect- 
ing the  time  of  its  desolation.  He  tells  us,  also,  that  Jesus 
declared  "  this  time  (v.  32)  to  be  unknown,  not  only  to 
men,  but  to  the  angels  in  heaven,  yea  to  the  Son  himself." 
It  was  only  after  the  Roman  army  was  in  Palestine  and 
had  begun  their  task,  that  the  time  was  declared  to  John, 
Rev.  11:  2. 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS.  139 

But  we  may  appeal  to  a  passage  still  more  applicable  to 
the  present  case,  and  which  comprises  more  within  its 
grasp.  The  anxious  disciples  asked  of  the  risen  Saviour, 
when  he  would  restore  the  kingdom  to  Israel?  It  matters 
not  what  particular  thing  they  had  in  mind,  i.  e.  whether 
it  was  purely  the  spiritual  kingdom  of  Christ,  or  the  eccle- 
siasti co-political  kingdom  which  they  had  once  been  ex- 
pecting. The  answer  is  one  which  should  be  engraven  on 
a  frontispiece  and  put  upon  the  study  door  of  every  writer 
on  the  prophecies,  who  indulges  the  expectation  of  being 
able  to  point  out  the  day  and  the  hour  of  fulfilment.  It 
was  this :  it  is  not  for  vocj  to  know  the  times  or  the 

SEASONS,  WHICH  THE  FATHER  HAS  PUT  IN  HIS  OWN  POW- 
ER. Acts  1:  6,  7. 

If  now  it  was  not  for  even  apostles  to  know  these  secrets, 
is  it  for  every  curious  and  speculating  mind,  that  knows 
little  indeed  either  of  history  or  exegetical  science,  to  tell 
us  all  about  such  matters  ?  Is  it  not  presumption  to  en- 
gage in  such  an  undertaking  ?  God  has  undoubtedly  de- 
termined upon  the  times  and  seasons,  when  all  events  that 
respect  his  church  will  take  place.  But  it  does  not  follow, 
that  he  has  revealed  this  matter  to  us.  We  are  satisfied 
that  he  has  not.  Why  not  leave  to  him  the  secret  things 
which  he  claims  as  his  own  prerogative  1  Why  assume  to 
ourselves  a  position,  which  he  does  not  allow  us  to  assume  ? 

But  alas!  all  the  disappointments  of  writers  teeming 
with  fancy  and  filled  with  confidence,  in  days  that  are 
past,  seem  to  have  made  no  serious  impression  on  the  like 
class  of  writers  at  the  present  period.  As  soon  as  ruthless 
time  mows  down  one  parterre  of  flowers  with  his  scythe, 
another  is  planted  on  its  ruins,  with  the  hope  of  having  a 
more  permanent  crop.  And  so  it  will  still  be.  When  1843 
passes  away,  and  the  world  still  moves  on  without  being 
jostled  from  its  orbit ;  the  Pope  still  issues  his  decrees  from 


140  CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 

the  Vatican ;  the  Sultan  still  haughtily  points  to  his  peering 
minarets  and  the  banners  of  Islam ;  and  faithful  and  hum- 
ble Christians  are  still  labouring  and  suffering  as  before ; 
then  some  more  fortunate  adventurer  will  perhaps  discover 
latent  error  in  former  calculations,  (as  recently  has  been 
the  case  in  respect  to  those  of  Bengel),  and  we  shall  then 
have  a  new  period  fixed  upon  as  the  consummation-period 
of  all.  But  this  will  in  all  probability  be  far  enough  in 
advance  to  be  out  of  the  reach  of  the  generation  who  are 
addressed,  and  therefore  beyond  their  power  of  absolute 
denial  or  of  decisive  correction.  When  this  is  once  done 
with  some  good  degree  of  ingenuity,  then  a  new  tune  will 
be  played  upon  the  old  instrument;  and  it  will  be  listened 
to  and  applauded  because  it  is  new.  Thus  we  go  on, 
amusing  ourselves  from  one  decennium  to  another,  ever 
pursuing  in  fact  the  same  phantoms,  although  we  give 
chase  to  them  in  different  directions.  When  such  chases 
will  be  over,  it  would  be  as  difficult  to  say,  as  to  fix  upon 
the  specific  period  of  the  Millennium. 

\S  It  may  not  be  improper  here  to  say,  that  while  the  exact 
time  cannot  be  discovered  by  us,  and  is  not  (as  I  believe) 
revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  yet  something  may  be  said  in 
respect  to  the  probable  period,  when  the  general  diffusion 
of  Christianity  will  take  place.  My  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion respecting  this  would  be,  that  it  will  speedily  take 
place,  when  all  Christians,  or  at  least  the  great  body  of 
them,  come  up  to  the  standard  of  duty,  or  come  very  near 
to  this  standard,  in  their  efforts  to  diffuse  among  the  na- 
tions of  the  earth  the  knowledge  of  salvation.  The  divine- 
ly appointed  means  will  secure  the  end,  because  God  will 
bless  them.  Every  Christian,  then,  and  every  Society  for 
propagating  the  knowledge  of  Christianity,  is  helping  to 
usher  in  the  millennial  day,  when  they  ply  this  work  to 

^/the  best  of  their  ability.     On  such  a  ground,  the  strongest 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS.  141 

encouragement  is  held  out  to  all  faithful  disciples.  They 
may  rest  assured,  that  "  their  work  and  labor  in  the  Lord 
are  not  in  vain." 

But  let  us,  on  the  other  hand,  suppose  that  a  definite 
time  has  been  disclosed  in  the  Apocalypse,  or  elsewhere  in 
the  Scripture,  before  which  it  is  impossible  that  the  Mil- 
lennium should  commence ;  what  encouragement  could 
Christians  have  to  engage  in  efforts  to  christianize  the 
world  before  that  period  arrives  1  They  must  take  every 
step  with  the  assurance  that  the  end  is  unattainable.  Di- 
vine decree  has  fixed  the  time,  and  disclosed  it  to  them, 
before  which  all  means  and  all  efforts  to  convert  the  na- 
tions must  be  unavailing.  The  consequence  of  course 
would  naturally  be,  a  total  remission,  on  the  part  of  true 
believers  in  the  divine  word,  of  all  efforts  to  evangelize  the 
world.  And  can  it  be  thought  credible,  that  the  same 
voice  which  has  proclaimed :  "  Go  ye,  and  preach  the  gos- 
pel to  every  creature,"  has  also  proclaimed,  (and  so  we 
may  rest  assured),  that  before  the  middle  or  close  of  the 
19th  century  the  nations  will  not  hearken  to  it  1  This  is 
not  the  manner  in  which  the  great  Head  of  the  church  is 
wont  to  deal  with  his  servants.  He  has  told  them,  that 
the  times  and  the  seasons  the  Father  keeps  in  his  own  power. 
For  the  rest,  they  have  only  to  obey  his  commands  as  to 
proclaiming  the  gospel,  and  leave  the  event  with  him. 

One  thing  more  I  feel  constrained  to  say,  before  I  quit 
this  theme  of  the  latter  day  of  glory.  Whether  we  have 
respect  to  the  Millennium,  usually  so  named,  or  to  a  more 
prosperous  period  still,  near  the  close  of  time,  the  extrava- 
gant apprehensions  so  often  entertained  and  avowed  re- 
specting this  season  of  prosperity,  seem  quite  unworthy  of 
credit.  The  prophets  have  indeed  employed  most  glowing 
language,  in  describing  the  future  season  of  prosperity ; 
and  all  they  have  said,  will  doubtless  prove  to  be  true,  in 


142  CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 

the  sense  which  they  meant  to  convey.  But  let  him  who 
interprets  these  passages  remember  well,  that  they  are 
poetry,  and  are  replete  in  an  unusual  degree  with  figura- 
tive language  and  poetic  imagery.  Let  him  call  to  mind, 
moreover,  that  the  language  employed  in  the  last  twenty- 
seven  chapters  of  Isaiah,  in  order  to  describe  the  return 
from  the  Babylonish  captivity,  and  the  prosperity  which 
would  ensue,  is  scarcely,  if  at  all,  less  glowing  than  that 
which  has  respect  to  the  future  prosperity  of  the  Messiah's 
kingdom.  Besides  all  this,  he  must  never  forget  that  the 
present  stage  of  our  existence  is  probationary,  and  there- 
fore sin,  suffering,  and  sorrow  must  be  connected  with  it. 
Are  we  to  be  told  in  earnest,  that  men  will,  at  some  future 
period,  be  born  destitute  of  any  taint  or  free  from  any 
evil  consequence  of  Adam's  fall,  and  that  they  will  be  with- 
out sin,  and  need  no  regeneration  or  sanctification  1  And 
must  we  thus  be  persuaded  to  believe,  that  they  will  not 
need  a  Redeemer  too  1  for  this  would  be  a  necessary  con- 
sequence of  such  a  state  of  things.  Christian  churches, 
also,  and  a  ministry  of  reconciliation,  will  no  longer  be 
needed ;  and  even  all  civil  government  may  be  dispensed 
with  !  No ;  we  must  not  indulge  in  such  visionary  con- 
ceits as  these.  The  time  will  never  be,  so  long  as  proba- 
tion lasts,  when  there  will  not  be  unregenerate  men  to  be 
converted  ;  Christians  to  be  instructed,  guided,  comforted, 
reproved,  chastened;  and  therefore  abundance  of  work 
for  Christian  ministers.  Their  labours  will  indeed  be 
crowned  with  success  ;  but  occasion  for  labour  will  always 
be  occurring.  "  Whom  the  Lord  loveth,  he  chasteneth," 
is  a  truth  never  to  be  lost  sight  of,  in  the  preparation  of 
sons  and  daughters  for  a  state  of  glory.  In  the  hands  of 
God,  suffering  and  trial  become  the  means  of  the  Chris- 
tian's higher  good  ;  and  therefore  we  cannot  expect  those 
means  to  be  excluded  from  the  millennial  state.     A  great 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS.  143 

diminution  of  evil  of  every  kind  we  may  well  expect,  when 
the  latter  day  of  glory  shall  come.  But  men  will  still  be 
frail  dying  creatures,  and  undergo  pain  and  decay.  They 
will  be  imperfect  in  holiness,  and  will  need  admonition 
and  correction.  They  will  still  only  "  know  in  part,  and 
believe  in  part,"  and  will  need  a  constant  process  of  sanc- 
tification  and  illumination.  The  visionary  schemes  then, 
which  represent  the  Millennium  as  the  return  of  the  primi- 
tive paradisiacal  state,  are  not  for  a  moment  to  be  listened 
to  by  a  sober  and  discreet  man.  The  state  of  Adam's 
race  is  fixed  and  certain.  A  world  of  sin  and  suffering  is 
as  sure  to  be  their  probationary  habitation,  as  that  the  de- 
cree of  God  will  stand.  Yet  this  same  world  will  be  the 
place  where  his  rich  and  abounding  compassion  will  be 
shown  in  the  most  conspicuous  manner.  "Glory  will  be 
given  to  God  in  the  highest,  that  there  is  peace  on  earth, 
and  good  will  manifested  to  the  children  of  men." 

It  is  no  part  of  my  design  to  utter  personal  reflections, 
or  to  cast  reproach,  on  those,  who,  in  England  and  in  our 
country,  have  for  these  many  years  been  labouring  to  excite 
the  churches  to  engage  in  speculations  respecting  the  pro- 
phecies. That  many  of  them  are  well-meaning  men,  and 
even  men  of  ardent  piety,  I  should  be  among  the  last  to  call 
in  question.  But  John  Albert  Bengel  was  all  this,  and 
much  more.  He  was  a  pillar  of  the  higher  order  in  the 
temple  of  God.  His  learning  and  philology  command 
homage,  even  at  the  present  time.  Yet  "the  baseless  fab- 
ric of  his  vision  has  not  left  a  wreck  behind."  And  so  it 
has  fared — so  I  apprehend  it  will  fare — with  many  a  vatici- 
nation equally  confident  with  his.  Why  should  we  not 
take  warning,  when  we  hear  the  surges  roar,  and  see  the 
breakers  ahead,  to  steer  the  good  ship  in  a  safer  and  more 
quiet  direction  ? 

If  the  matter  in  question  merely  concerned  a  few  ardent 


144  CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 

men,  prone  to  dive  into  turbid  depths  and  seek  for  pearls 
there,  we  might  let  them  dive  on,  and  pass  quietly  upon 
our  own  way.  But  the  church  is  assailed  on  all  sides  with 
the  claims  of  these  hariolations.  It  has  even  come  to  this, 
that  the  quiet  and  sober  Christian  is  reproached  with  a 
want  of  faith,  because  he  hesitates  to  engage  in  them,  or 
to  sympathize  with  them.  Ministers  of  the  Gospel  are  in 
some  cases  looked  upon  with  coldness,  and  even  with  dis- 
dain, because  they  will  not  preach  these  fanciful  interpre- 
tations. It  is  time,  therefore,  for  common  sense  and  rea- 
son to  rouse  themselves  up  for  action,  and  make  sober, 
honest,  thorough  inquiry  as  to  what  ground  there  is  for  all 
this  excitement.  There  is  nothing  in  sacred  hermeneutics, 
that  casts  such  a  stain  on  English  and  American  exposi- 
tors, as  the  character  of  their  interpretation  of  some  parts 
of  the  prophets.  They  have  no  standard,  no  landmark,  no 
compass.  Every  man  says  "  what  is  right  in  his  own 
eyes,"  and  then  calls  upon  others  to  agree  with  him.  The 
most  ingenious  and  fluent  man  is  most  extensively  applaud- 
ed, ingenious  in  forming  conjectures,  and  fluent  in  his 
mode  of  developing  them.  Thus,  as  we  might  expect,  one 
book  succeeds  another  with  the  greatest  rapidity ;  and  the 
public,  at  least  a  portion  of  it,  ever  thirsting  after  novelty, 
and  excited  by  the  hope  of  obtaining  a  look  into  the  future, 
receive  every  new  actor  in  this  drama  with  more  or  less 
of  applause.  How  often  is  one  compelled  to  turn  away 
from  this  spectacle,  with  an  agitated  and  even  mournful 
look,  and  exclaim :  When  will  the  churches  learn  to  be- 
lieve what  their  divine  Master  declared,  in  saying  to  his 
anxiously  inquiring  disciples :  It  is  not  yours  to  know 

THE  TIMES  AND  THE  SEASONS,  WHICH  THE  FATHER  HATH 
PUT  IN  HIS  OWN  POWER. 

One  thing  must  at  all  events  be  true.     If  the  Bible  is 
not  to  be  interpreted  by  the  common  principles  of  language, 


CONCLUDING  REMARS^S^  145 

it  cannot  be  interpreted  at  all,  except  by  inspired  men.  Is 
there  any  promise  to  the  church  of  such  a  class  of  inter- 
preters t  If  not,  then  our  only  safety  lies,  in  adopting  and 
following  out  the  common,  well-known,  and  well-establish- 
ed principles  of  interpretation.  That  these  are  violated  by 
the  extravagant  and  unfounded  views  so  common  at  the 
present  day,  lies  upon  the  very  face  of  the  interpretations. 
The  main  object  of  this  little  book  has  been,  to  show  how 
they  are  unfounded,  and  why  they  ought  to  be  so  regarded. 
And  now  I  appeal  to  the  sober  judgment  of  every  unpre- 
judiced reader,  and  ask  him  the  question :  Am  I  not  in 
the  right,  in  insisting  that  all  designations  of  time  should 
be  interpreted  according  to  their  obvious  meaning,  when 
no  good  reason  can  be  given  why  we  should  depart  from 
this  ?  Are  not  the  historical  facts  that  I  have  adduced  as 
the  fulfilment  of  events  predicted,  as  true  to  the  represen- 
tations in  the  prophecies,  as  other  fulfilments  to  which  we 
usually  appeal  1  If  so,  why  should  we  not  be  satisfied 
with  them  ?  Why  should  we  persevere  in  looking  to  cen- 
turies in  advance  for  fulfilment  of  that,  respecting  which  it 
is  repeatedly   and  solemnly  declared,  that  it  shall  take 

place  SPEEDILY. 

Particularly  would  I  urge  one  consideration  here.  It  is 
this.  How  could  it  so  happen,  that  all  the  various  histori- 
cal events  to  which  I  have  adverted  as  fulfilments  of  pro- 
phecy, and  which,  it  must  in  candour  be  granted,  look  very 
much  like  fulfilments,  should  have  happened  at  times  that 
coincide  so  exactly  with  the  times  designated  in  the  pro- 
phecies ?  One  or  two  of  these  we  might  account  for  on 
the  ground  of  accident ;  but  that  so  many  events  of  the  na- 
ture just  described,  should  have  all  happened  at  the  periods 
in  question,  and  in  regular  order — is  a  matter  which  car- 
ries on  its  very  face  the  stamp  of  being  connected  with 
prophecy. 

13 


146  CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 

If  the  sober  and  considerate  portion  of  our  religious  com- 
munity can  be  persuaded  to  give  some  due  attention  to 
this  subject,  and  to  insist  on  the  application  of  sound  prin- 
ciples to  all  prophetic  exegesis,  an  important  end  will  be 
answered.  If  others  more  capable  than  myself,  and  who 
have  more  leisure,  can  be  roused  up  to  pursue  the  inves- 
tigations which  are  here  but  imperfectly  commenced,  and 
to  expose  any  errors,  or  confirm  any  truths,  which  have 
now  been  suggested,  this  little  book  will  not  have  been 
written  in  vain. 


END. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamned  h*»rtw 


JUflF 


'Hit 


-4-  -R£e^frJ«A5^Sll^HLS^_ 

uuq  end  ot — — 


^fiii^ 


lpt%tf^ 


jggirm^vm. — im-*-3& 


S^P_ORC_om        SEP  1 1 74 


MOV    41980 


ECEi 


DEC  1 1  lyso 


CiRCULATIOI 


,o^P»1A-50m-2.'71  General  Library 

<P2001S10)476— A-32  University  of  Caltfornia 

Berkeley 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


